bens) wh oy YAY te 


wigibte aotea he 
=e 
“ tyes 
Sete ! ‘ : Bastar) ee + 
: i Saatet evar 
Lays ; Hratle a) brecbet f sLeaam 


’ : 4 ON elapse 
we oh BL by ech dae . Re ape ent ast bas tay a hoe aeaT te * 
yEMU Rear es oad de Ia ] 4 : : 1S aidevin bbs : : : wateheys 

pyre sale 3e signal ers! ; 4 


Pets 


pSeay in seis ns ' Pern. oe 
thee? ‘ ; w . fhe Sie beetyiers tne rete 
> : eres b ae 


spgesry seer’) 


ie 4 
Jee erastesoutere 
2 atets 


pivieres ei: 


$ 
Pe Detry 


Shr ereegeeagyyes Sete 
Sth 4 er llapareg #\ e+ 


Bo fh chet ne wh aA 


ra lare 

Misergopice : 

L i 7 Seep de Sta ee * oyna ieee wie os " 

3 ‘ r perer Pieris Shadvses Uy Meee : Aa, Sey here Saserwehe ys | vi ks qta ‘ i 
nee ¢ aS) ore rare 46 eres : ‘ % * “ .- ‘ eae ‘ 
atcha teri : : ; : Fai Hees . eres te Coe Sp ale a stb! ap 
7 BS : dae ose Peneeer tet fit tole = oe, 

a + 

preter’ 
tis 


: 
Be 
aetna 


sjydne 


Ath bie Sees e 8 
oie 2 rota ‘ 
Nts bese: fe dadh ce 
Ortti sem tat te 
Peseer einai 
ahes ent ty 
as 


ee 
- fhe 
ARATE Poe weet 


wi niwrel baad 
HPS emer se 


Vet her tay 


oe 


we 
eed eevee The aed 
rere! OW Weytase +e t 
5 pe * 0°e ie Loe sa ‘ 
spielen vrs 
PEE ETT SS OY copes 
roars 


ar fh 
t 


ne 0 yee 
fret 


yee 
Poe Aen ee 


eoreere 
Vg aes t 
Ptarate ast 


tats goes 
bet eh ee 


Peeeeer 
weer 


Pa Parerst | 
Pete eee ve 


+ 
erst + . 


ie pee ee 


ws . ‘ 
0b bela se aiete @ He drele ee gee 


de bie A 
~~ = 


Ce : 
fi o-4 

Tm ? &-& 23 Lister @ 

. whecordte, owe 


REMBRANDT 
AND HIS SCHOOL 


REMBRANDT: PORTRAIT OF JAN SIX 


Six Collection, Amsterdam 


REMBRANDT 
AND HIS SCHOOL 


A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE MASTER 
AND HIS PUPILS WITH A NEW ASSIGNMENT 
OF THEIR PICTURES 


BY 
JOHN C. VAN DYKE 


PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHAZOLOGY IN RUTGERS COLLEGE, 
SOMETIME LECTURER AT PRINCETON, COLUMBIA, AND HARVARD UNIVERSITIES, 
AUTHOR OF “A HISTORY OF PAINTING,” “‘ART FOR ART’S SAKE,” 
““NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS,” ETC. 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


1923 


S'la sein Oe TL ea wer {en ee 
ey fae a a 
ane pad Wy aa priv eglae 
oe ee a Oneer ; " 
a al, t 


=f ee he 
: a” eon 
. Bi : : “ y F “vee 
: \ + : ree a Ly, 
ef , | Te ere 
P +7 wee ai sf 
Vir Pa’ eae 6 wy > ‘ 
F Fe Wd ‘ok (I ee a re 
7 } \ vy." : a <S 
7 | ‘ae 
Cs ‘ 
1 - > 
* 
a 5 
i \ 
. / 
sll ‘ 
me . 
: i 
1 . . 
ie f 
, ‘ i iy 
os 


 Copyricur, 1993, BY 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
Printed in the United States of America 


. 


¥ 2 
Paine oe 


“yd i a 


; DEDICATED 
TO 
CLARE Y: D. PARR 


tar + 
vi 
| 

r 
e 
” 


wy 


PREFACE 


So far back as 1883 my notes on the pictures in European galleries 
indicate that I was sceptical of the Rembrandt attributions and the Rem- 
brandt tradition. At that time I was studying art from the painter’s 
point of view, and was directly interested in brushwork and the manipu- 
lation of paint. I could not understand the variety of ways in which 
Rembrandt handled a surface, why he found it necessary to use so many 
different styles and methods, why he was weak and strong, smooth and 
rough, cramped and flowing, all in the same year. I wondered if ‘‘Rem- 
brandt”’ were not a cloak covering the work of many pupils. 

In 1895, in writing the text for Timothy Cole’s Engravings of Old 
Dutch Masters, I ventured to suggest, tentatively, that many of the 
Rembrandt School pictures were doing service as Rembrandts. It was 
not, however, until 1911, when preparing my New Guides to Old Masters, 
that I was able to say positively that the work of twenty or more pupils 
was confused with that of Rembrandt, and that the Rembrandt tradition 
was a strange mixture of fact and fiction. At that time I pointed out by 
name and number a great many erroneously attributed “‘Rembrandts,”’ and 
insisted that the whole Rembrandt wuvre was a huge snowball that had 
gathered to itself the work of the school, and that every turn of the ball 
added new ingredients to the mass. To-day, in putting forth this book, 
I have endeavored to break up the ball and return the different parts to 
their original producers. The work (if it has been rightly done) should 
lead to a reconstruction of the school and a better understanding not only 
of Rembrandt’s pupils but of Rembrandt himself. 

In rearranging the pictures I have allowed them to fall where they 
would. I have had no theory to enforce and have sought merely that pic- 
tures of a kind, esthetically, mentally, and technically, should go together. 
Names have not prejudiced me and in the distribution Rembrandt has been 
allowed to fare the same as Bol or Horst or Eeckhout. The result of the 
rearrangement has been that thirty or more groups of pictures have formed 

1 The Guides deal primarily with the esthetic in pictures and the question of attributions is merely incidental. 
Occasionally I declare a picture not to be by the painter to whom it is assigned, and, more rarely, I suggest the 
possible painter. I am not surprised ten years later, and after special study of Rembrandt and his School, to 


find that I was sometimes mistaken in my earlier suggestions. 
vii 


vill PREFACE 


themselves rather than been formed by me. To perhaps twenty of the 
groups I have been able to assign names with some positiveness. To the 
remaining groups I have given merely numbers. There were some seventy 
pupils and followers of Rembrandt, and it would be easy enough to give 
names instead of numbers, but I have not cared to make history in that 
way. It would be merely setting up men of straw. 

A significant feature of the groups was that each one as it formed began 
to disclose a distinct personality. In the majority of cases the personalities 
fitted in positively with what we know regarding certain well-known pupils, 
such as Flinck or Maes or Aert de Gelder; but the groups that hinted at 
no names, the groups that are listed under numbers only, are just as dis- 
tinctly personal and individual as the others. They proclaim the hand 
that made them though the man behind the brush has no longer a local 
habitation and a name. 

Still another thing has been brought out by the redistribution. 
Each of the groups stands by itself and will not blend or affiliate with any 
of the other groups, except in the most general way. Horst will not go 
with Drost, nor Group No. 2 with Group No. 4. And none of them will 
go with Rembrandt. To mix them together is to reproduce the present 
hodge-podge, which is called the Rembrandt euvre. It is these distinctive 
personalities created by the groupings of the pictures that I am relying 
upon to carry conviction. To believe that Rembrandt, however versatile, 
could have been in himself thirty or forty men is to believe the impossible. 
There is no analogy or precedent for it in the history or the experience of 
mankind. 

What is the object of this reconstruction? Merely to establish the 
truth. For forty years I have been teaching the history of art with voice 
and book, to find at every turn my teaching denied and forsworn by the 
attributions of the pictures in the galleries. The Rembrandt attributions 
are a mad confusion. ‘Those in the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum in Berlin 
will answer for illustration—the better, perhaps, because Doctor Bode, 
widely known as an authority on Rembrandt, is responsible for them. The 
twenty-six pictures listed in this Museum in 1921 as Rembrandts were 
painted by ten or more different painters. Only three of them can be put 
down to Rembrandt, and there is even a shade of doubt about each one of 
the three. The rest of them are by Eeckhout, Bol, Koninck, Horst, and 
their contemporaries. To imagine only one artistic personality in such a 
medley of pictures is to imagine a vain thing. 

The Metropolitan Museum here in New York, with its dozen or fifteen 
supposed Rembrandts, is another illustration to the point. Not one of the 


PREFACE 1X 


pictures put down to Rembrandt is by him. There are several that may 
be called “work-shop”’ pictures—near-Rembrandts—and the rest of them 
are by pupils of the school. The Old Woman Cutting Her Nails is by 
Nicolaes Maes; the Pilate Washing His Hands and the Oriental are by 
Salomon Koninck; the Young Dutch Woman is by Jacob Backer; the 
Hendrickje Stoffels by Bernaert Fabritius, and so on—as the lists at the end 
of this volume will suggest. 

Of course, the directors of museums have a good excuse for retaining 
the present attributions. The pictures in many instances were given to 
the museums by people who bought, and believed they were buying, Rem- 
brandts. To look gift pictures too closely in the mouth by writing them 
down as pupils’ work would be to lose possible future donations. And the 
pictures are excellent pictures—excellent enough to be in any gallery— 
though they are not by Rembrandt. But the art public should not be 
misled by considerations that close the mouth of gallery directors. They 
should know the truth of art history. 

Besides, it is not fair to Rembrandt to hold him responsible for the 
productions, good, bad, or indifferent, of his pupils. It detracts from his 
individuality and creates a false impression regarding him. Nor is it fair 
to the pupils that their best works should be taken from them and given 
to Rembrandt. It practically destroys their identity. For example, in 
these pages I have tried to re-establish the artistic personalities of Drost, 
Horst, Van der Pluym—pupils of Rembrandt, about whom, I venture to 
think, not one art student in a hundred has ever heard except in a very 
vague way. ‘They were quite lost under the name of Rembrandt—lost in 
the Rembrandt snowball. Even such well-known pupils as Bol, Flinck, 
and Eeckhout have been written down as weak followers of Rembrandt 
because every strong picture they painted was wrested from them many 
years ago, signed with the Rembrandt name, certified to by some Rem- 
brandt authority, and sold to a rich collector. The dead can make no 
protest and the living accept false witnesses against them. 

It will be readily understood that such a book as this is not put forth 
without misgivings. One hesitates about flying in the face of preconceived 
opinion and inviting denunciation. Writers who have written seriously 
but mistakenly about Rembrandt (and I am one of them), gallery direc- 
tors who have catalogued Rembrandt, art authorities, experts, collectors, 
or dealers who have advised about or bought or sold Rembrandts, may feel 
obliged to defend themselves by denouncing my conclusions. I have no wish 
to discredit any one’s authority or to depreciate the commercial value of 
any one’s holdings, but I cannot be turned aside by such considerations. 


x PREFACE 


Wherever possible I have confined illustration to pictures in public gal- 
leries, feeling that they are public property. I refer to pictures in private 
possession only when it is necessary to enforce a point that otherwise might 
fail for lack of a connecting link. In such cases I feel justified, believing, 
as I do, that the Dutch School of painting belongs to the race, not to the 
individual, and that public inquiry should not be silenced by private 
interest. 

The student of art, to follow my argument rightly, should know the 
pictures of the Dutch School at first hand, rather than in copy or repro- 
duction. A partial illustration has been made herein by photographic 
reproductions, but it is very inadequate. Instead of two hundred there 
should be a thousand photographs, and even then we should vitally miss 
the color, light, air, texture, handling, of the originals. But, with many 
students, the study of the photograph is the only study possible. There- 
fore the best reproductions should be obtained. These, as regards Rem- 
brandt, are to be found in the monumental folios compiled by Doctor Bode, 
obtainable in all the larger libraries. In smaller form the volume on Rem- 
brandt in the Klassiker der Kunst series (Third Edition, edited by Doctor 
W. R. Valentiner, with 643 half-tone reproductions, and with a supple- 
mentary volume of some hundred or more recently discovered Rembrandts 
issued in 1921), and the volume of Rembrandt’s Etchings arranged by 
A. M. Hind may be had at a moderate price. Because of their accessibility 
to every one I refer to these smaller volumes continually herein. For those 
who have the Bode folios I have made reference by number, following the 
numbers in the Klassiker der Kunst volumes. Photographs of the Rem- 
brandt pupils’ work must be picked up in catalogues, illustrated works, and 
the prints of Briickman, Hanfstaengl, and others. 

I have to thank the editors of the Burlington Magazine and also the 
publishers of the Klassiker der Kunst series for permission to reproduce 
several photographs from their publications. 


JoHn C. Van DYKE. 
Routerers Couiece, February, 1923. 


CONTENTS 


Ae a ee re a eg ta etl ye 26 yi 
CHAPTER 
Peers REMBRANDTEPIGLURESMy cu os Se Ss ko ow) eo we ow a 1 
Die eee ATOR ee Ge ke ee ke 6 
Di OmVVORKGHOD Um rumen ier PS i 14 
INPRHEAINTERNADSIUVIDENCH) . + .* . << © .« « «6 « «© w 1s « 20 
WR EMBRANDT THE MASTER . 2 2 s. . see et we lw el 28 
Wipe ICTOURMAPRYATHE ONVUANSTER ac 6 es. 60e ba ee ec ees 33 


PicturEs By Puprits— 


VIL. ERD Da, ee ae Cr erm. || 
VII. DAC Semen eee eens ae ie eG tank Gi see 2 OO 
IX. PASRITIUS-—-DOOGBTRATUN: “ck ee ke le lw CO 
X. PEC IS SMD ene es ek eS el Ke kh a ye 100 
A. LiEVENS—PavpiIss Se ee weeee en Riva cian. ile. toe SIF 
XII. Yan pen PuoyM—WuLrwAGHN. 4.0 506 3) wt ws Cw. «= 
XIII. LINKROWN UL RORILA (0 Wh ene rt eee Wii aiew tera a. > 188 


XIV. Orner Painters MiIstaKEN FOR REMBRANDT . ..... . . . 165 


id 


2 
i 


: 1 
4 
. > 
iyi? 
rary ih 
‘7 
4 
\ a 
; 1 
A sO ee 
f i 
STAN 
Oeste Ves 
any 
mY 
Ve 
nt 
+ 7. 
; 
+ 
. A 
- 
» 
- 
’ 
=. 
i 
i 
‘ 
a) 
of 
ry i ca 


PB ak 
7) (Al Se 


RemBranvtT: Portrait oF JAN Srx, Stx CoLLection, AMSTERDAM 


PLATE 


i: 
2. 


PLATE 


3. 
4. 


PLATE 


Le 
8. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


ee ee ee ee ee ee te ce ie | oH OCINY page 
Rembrandt: Rembrandt’s Sister, Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 
* Lievens (given to Rembrandt): Rembrandt’s Sister, Brera, Milan. 
Tee ee ew etl)! gs oe MCU | Belween pages 38 and 
Rembrandt: Portrait of Coppenol, Cassel Gallery. 
es Portrait of Saskia, Cassel Gallery. 
se Portrait of a Young Man, Louvre, Paris. 
ei Portrait of Saskia with the Red Flower, Dresden Gallery. 
Te oS «6 a) el ac, » Between pages 38 and 
Rembrandt: A Jewish Rabbi, National Gallery, London. 
* The Five Syndics, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
* The Jewish Bride, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
oo Portrait of Decker, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
ES Mee ROME eke! has en a bow ale 5 PS RCINg page 
Rembrandt Shop: Portrait of Rembrandt, Cassel Gallery. 
‘ “Portrait of Rembrandt, Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 
z “Portrait of a Young Woman, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 
be ** Descent from Cross, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 
Sh VU eet ie te es fe. ow | Webineen pages 46-and 
Backer: Portrait of Old Woman, Wallace Collection, London. 
- (given to Rembrandt): Young Dutchwoman, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 
ki Portrait of a Woman, Darmstadt Museum. 
(given to Rembrandt): Wife of Alenson, Schneider Collection, Paris. 
Gee ie dy) ER ote pd ae wee oe. sl ee etinaen pages 46 and 
Backer: Portrait of Old Lady, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 
3 (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Old Lady, Havemeyer Collection, New York. 
os Portrait of a Woman, Antwerp Museum. 
"e (given to Rembrandt): Elizabeth Bas, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
Re a ee ne) a on ee oe Be eee ages 54 and. 
Bol: Three Marys at Tomb, Copenhagen Museum. 
“(given to Rembrandt): Tobias and Angel, Louvre, Paris. 
“Portrait of Man, Cassel Gallery. 
** (given to Rembrandt): Young Samson, Evans Collection, Boston. 
LLL i ey, hee ee eee tem eet eee ee ehinestn pages OS ned 
Bol: Portrait of a Man, Brunswick Museum. 
** (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Man, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
“Portrait of Young Man, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
** (formerly to Rembrandt): Young Man, Brunswick Museum. 


xiii 


. Frontispiece 


24 


39 


39 


40 


47 


47 


55 


55 


XIV 


PLATE 


IX 


Drost: Christ and Magdalene, Cassel Gallery. 


«e 
“ce 


ee 


xX 


Drost: Portrait of Man, Felix Warburg Collection, New York. 


“ee 
“cc 


ee 


XI 


Eeckhout: 


“ 


XII . 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Between pages 62 and 63 


(given to Flinck): Susanna, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 
Portrait of Old Man, Dresden Gallery. 
(given to Rembrandt): Christ at the Column, Carstanjen Collection, Berlin. 


Between pages 62 and 63 


(given to Vermeer of Delft): Portrait of Man, Brussels Museum. 
Portrait of Young Woman, Wallace Collection, London. 
(given to Rembrandt): A Sibyl, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 


Jacob’s Dream, Dresden Gallery. 
(given to Rembrandt): Ascension, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 

Resting Sportsman, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 

(given to Rembrandt): Daniel’s Vision, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 


Between pages 66 and 67 


Between pages 66 and 67 


Eeckhout: Anna Consecrating Her Son, Louvre, Paris. 


73 
6 


6 


XIII 


B. Fabritius: 


XIV 


B. Fabritius: 
ce ce 


ee 


2s 


C. Fabritius: 


“ 


“ce 


XVI 


C. Fabritius: 
ee ce 


“e 


ee 


“ce 


“e 


“ 


“ee 


(given to Rembrandt): Bathsheba, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 
Bathers, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
(given to Rembrandt): Diana Bathing, National Gallery, London. 


Py cakewalk Meh eae Mee Between pages 78 and 79 
Young Man in Shepherd Costume, Vienna Academy. 
(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Titus, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 
Young Man, Staedel Institute, Frankfort. 

(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Woman, National Gallery, London. 


sla bak lich. a Wc ee eee Between pages 78 and = 79 
Portrait of Young Woman (Hendrickje), Dresden Gallery. 
(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Hendrickje Stoffels, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 
Architect and Family, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 

(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Man, Frick Collection, New York. 


Between pages 80 and 81 


Portrait of the Painter, Boymans Museum, Rotterdam. 
(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Man, Schwab Collection, New York. 
Abraham de Notte, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 

(given to Rembrandt): Venus and Love, Louvre, Paris. 


i ag x NR Between pages 80 and 81 
Portrait of Young Man, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 
(given to Holland School): Portrait of Man, Brussels Museum. 

(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Man, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 


Vermeer of Delft: A Geographer, Staedel Institute, Frankfort. 


XVII 


Flinck: Portrait of Girl, Brunswick Museum. 


ee 


“ee 


sé 


. . . « Between pages 86 and 87 


(given to Rembrandt): Saskia as Flora, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
Portrait of Young Girl, Kunsthalle, Hamburg. 
(given to Rembrandt): Saskia at Her Toilet, The Hague Museum. 


ILLUSTRATIONS XV 


Piaties VLR ae a . . . . » Between pages 86 and 87 
67. Flinck: Portrait of Officer, Hones Aigo 
68. (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Jewish Boy, Hermitage, Petrograd. 


69. Ss Portrait of Young Man, The Hague Portrait Exhibition, 1903. 
70. ay (given to Rembrandt): Young Man with Stick, Sedelmeyer Galleries, Paris. 


Puate XIX . . . Between pages 90 and 91 
(Ae De Gelder: The Jewish Bride, ola Picehels Munich. 
72. (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Woman, Sedelmeyer Galleries, Paris. 


735) 1% “Portrait of Young Man, Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 
os “(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Woman, Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 


Fusara XX. |. : . . . Between pages 90 and 91 


75. De Gelder: Portrait of Van Beveren, Hadecbrock es The Hague. 

(A ee eee s (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Saskia, Byers Collection, Pittsburg. 

Chee ae a Portrait of Painter, Hermitage, Petrograd. 

78; °° ° (given to Rembrandt): Man with Golden Helmet, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 


Pree ieee es | kl ell Uw Uw 6t 6UBebween pages 102 and 108 


79. Horst: Magnanimity of Scipio, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 

80. ie (given to Rembrandt): Judas and the Pieces of Silver, Preyer Gallery, The Hague. 
81. “*  David’s Charge to Solomon, National Gallery, Dublin. 

82. “(given to Rembrandt): Danaé, Hermitage, Petrograd. 


BUMMER MEL See sw ltl lt lel Between pages 102 and 103 
83. Horst: Isaac Blessing Jacob, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 
84. a (given to Rembrandt): Blinding of Samson, Staedel Institute, Frankfort. 


85. “Double Portrait, Wauchope Collection, Niddrie House, England. 
86. i (given to Rembrandt): Bathsheba, Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 


Peete om ell. . . lk , PS vee cosy ues an atebioren pages 2nd) LT 
87. Koninck: Workers in the seeds) Hermitage, Petrograd. 
88. (given to Rembrandt): Philosopher, Louvre, Paris. 
89. Mid Portrait of Old Woman, Boston Museum. 
90. (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Old Woman, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
Reema lY ws kl. . . .  . Between pages 110 and 111 
91. Koninck (given to Bol): Portrait of ite Man, National Gallery, Edinburgh. 
92. ** (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Young Man, Petit Palais, Paris. 
93. ** Joseph Before Pharaoh, Schwerin Museum. 
94, ** (given to Rembrandt): David Before Saul, Staedel Institute, Frankfort. 
SMOOVE Wa ek OS vn S, eetwmeen pages 110 and 111 
95. Koninck: Adoration of Kings, The Hague Museum. 
96. aS (given to Rembrandt): David with Head of Goliath, Goudstikker Collection, Amsterdam. 
97. he Cie eer os ): An Oriental, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 
98. “ale Gl Ses: 7 ): A Turk, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 
Peer Ve Pk) eeedg® Wawa! Eo ono aeoeen, pages 122 and 128 


99. Lievens: Portrait of Man, Imperial Museum, Vienna. 

100. " (given to Rembrandt): A Scholar, Sedelmeyer Galleries, Paris. 
101. a Old Man, Brunswick Museum. 

102. me (given to Rembrandt): Old Man, Fabbri Collection, New York. 


xvl 


PLATE 


103. 
104. 
105. 
106. 


PLATE 


107. 
108. 
109. 
110. 


PLATE 


ine 
112. 
113. 
114. 


PLATE 


115. 
116. 
117. 
118. 


PLATE 


119. 
120. 
121. 
122. 


PLATE 


123. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 
SAV Se) GP, oN oe ee ee ons Re Delineen  panes1 22 and 


Lievens: Abraham’s Offering, Brunswick Museum. 
se (retouched by Rembrandt): Portrait of Boy, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
es Portrait of Old Man, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
‘+ (given to Rembrandt): Man’s Portrait, Cassel Gallery. 


SOX VOD Oe A Ah eee SO Py a ee Belren nunrest comane 


Maes: Sleeping Woman, Brussels Museum. 

(given to Rembrandt): Woman Cutting Her Nails, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 
Praying Woman, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 

“(given to Holland School): A Dead Woman, Brussels Museum. 


“c 


SRK Te ae Bee tery UALS Th (eek OE tl ees EROCENY DATES CE ae 


Maes: Portrait of Woman, Budapest Museum. 
“(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Woman, National Gallery, London. 
“© Portrait of Woman, Lehman Collection, Paris. 
“* (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Old Woman, Brussels Museum. 


SX Ue Bia eae eo da) ee tle ebogen Ogee TL oO Taie 


Maes: Portrait of a Man, The Hague Museum. 
“* (given to Rembrandt): An Architect, Cassel Gallery. 
“Portrait of Man, Lehman Collection, Paris. 
“* (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Man, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 


XRD een fae : . . .  . Between pages 142 and 


Van der Pluym, Labourers in een Cook ey Richmond. 
3 (given to Rembrandt): Holy Family, Cassel Gallery. 
3 cS Holy Family, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
a Sess Ky Holy Family, Old Pinacothek, Munich. 


MAKI ei ees | a es eR ae Berean pages ba mmnon 


Van der Pluym (given to Rembrandt): Circumcision, Brunswick Museum. 
Old Rabbi, Budapest Museum. 


23 ea: Woman Taken in Adultery, National Gallery, London. 


6c “ee 6 & 


Simeon in Temple, The Hague Museum. 


POO, ORE, Ta oe . . .  . Between pages 142 and 


Van der Pluym (given to Rembrandt): Tobit and Wife, Tschugin Collection, Moscow. 
ee ‘s Tobit and Wife, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 


. eer ae Man with Red Cap, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 


“ec “ce ee “ 


Joseph’s Dream, Budapest Museum. 


RARIV. 9 he bie 2 a  Beheeen “pagers oUnaee 


Ovens: Woman and Child, Hanover Museum. 
Poorter: Solomon Offering to Idols, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
Roghman: Landscape, Louvre, Paris. 
- (given to Rembrandt): Tobias and Angel, National Gallery, London. 


». ©. 0.9 See wm een Ae ee Te nn Peg hs sory RAY 


Victors: Jacob’s Blessing, Budapest Museum. 

s (given to Rembrandt): Sending Away of Hagar, In Trade, London. 
Santvoort: Shepherdess, Boymans Museum, Rotterdam. 
DeWet: Adoration of Shepherds, Kunsthalle, Hamburg. 


123 


131 


131 


131 


143 


143 


143 


151 


151 


ILLUSTRATIONS Xvil 


Puats XXXVI... . . . .  . Between pages 160 and 161 
139. Pupil Group I (given to Rembrandt): David and Saul, Bredius Collection, The Hague. 
140. Joseph’s Coat, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
141. : ae Lee eee a Manoah’s Offering, Dresden Gallery. 
142. s yay NOP a ES = Man with Stick, Dresden Gallery. 
Peate MXXVIL . . 5. . . .  . Between pages 160 and 161 
143, Pupil Group Il (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Girl, Oppenheim Collection, Cologne. 
144. Portrait of Girl, Pontalba Collection, Senlis. 
145. y veh Bs haa i Portrait of Girl, Art Institute, Chicago. 
146.“ aoa nm Woman in Bed, National Gallery, Edinburgh. 
Teate SAXNVIIL 2... . . .  . Between pages 162 and 163 
147. Pupil Group IV (given to Rembrandt): A Rabbi, Escher Collection, Zurich. 
148. Portrait of Man, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
149. 4 VF de pce . A Philosopher, National Gallery, London. 
150. “ Tae ay ees i Rest in the Flight, The Hague Museum. 
icine tee, @.@ b, Sia : . . .  . Between pages 162 and 163 
151. Pupil Group VI (given to Rembrandt): Lender Cassel Gallery. 
162. Landscape, Brunswick Museum. 
153. = pee VL Lee ead a Landscape with Bridge, Oldenburg Gallery. 
154. oo a ake Mee < Landscape with Bridge, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
Peewee | ll CCU Cl tll tl sl tll lhl) Between pages 166 and 167 


155. Elsheimer: Mountain Landscape, Brunswick Museum. 
156. Lastman: Odysseus and Nausicaa, Brunswick Museum. 
157. Bramer: Simeon in the Temple, Brunswick Museum. 
158. Moyaert: Calling of Matthew, Brunswick Museum. 


Reet ee CU tC )~=s Between pages 166 and 167 


159. Seghers: Holland Landscape, Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. 

160. Crome School (given to Seghers): Landscape, National Gallery, Edinburgh. 
161. Van Goyen: Landscape with Two Trees, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 

162. Molyn: Landscape, Brunswick Museum. 


POAre ALA. es . .  . Between pages 168 and 169 


163. Frans Hals: Portrait of fay: Ryks Manse Amsterdam. 

164. Hals School (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Lady, Metropolitan Museum, New York. 

165. Hals: The Bohemian, Louvre, Paris. 

166. Hals School (given to Rembrandt): Adulteress Before Christ, Huldschinsky Collection, Berlin. 


Prare ALT . ©... . . . . . . Between pages 168 and 169 
167. Keyser: Portrait of Man, eka Gallery. 
168. 2 (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Krul, Cassel Gallery. 
169. ** Portrait of Scholar, The Hague Museum. 
170. ‘** (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Married Couple, Gardner Collection, Boston. 
alae. @ Bi § rs A . . . .  . Between pages 174 and 175 
171. Vermeer of Delft: Portrait of Wonss! nee Museum. 
172. oo e ey (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Lady, Hermitage, Petrograd. 
173. oe 2 My es Portrait of Man, Widener Collection, Philadelphia. 


174. 3 ae ee fe Portrait of Lady, Widener Collection, Philadelphia. 


XVlll 


PLATE 


175. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


SDV Ee ies ae . . .  . Between pages 174 and 


De Vlieger: Return of Hs ieee Ryks Mineo Amsterdam. 
-s (given to Rembrandt): Good Samaritan, Wallace Collection, London. 
Storm at Sea, Dresden Gallery. 
(given to Rembrandt): Christ Stilling the Tempest, Gardner Collection, Boston. 


it 


“ec 


ALVES neh et, . . . .  . Between pages 176 and 


Vliet: Portrait of Woman, Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 

“* (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Girl, Bredius Collection, The Hague. 
Portrait of Boy, Miiller Sale, Amsterdam, 1900. 
(given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Boy, Private Possession, Berlin. 


“ee 


ee 


XLVI ee Ge GVRP SS SS Belweentpagesarroncme 


Vliet (given to Rembrandt): Portrait of Woman, Private Possession, Denmark. 
oy ies ee Portrait of Woman, Vienna Academy. 
Elias (Pickenoy): Portrait of Mme. Van Nooy, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 
w Portrait of Mme. Ray, Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. 


175 


177 


LG 


REMBRANDT 
AND HIS SCHOOL 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


CHAPTER I 
THE REMBRANDT PICTURES 


HE student of art is always impressed in his early student days by the 
great output of pictures put down to such men as Rubens, Van Dyck, 
and Rembrandt. Wandering in European galleries and continually con- 
fronted by these names upon picture-frames, he asks himself again and 
again how they were physically able to cover so much canvas in their brief 
span of years. The answer to his query is that they were not able—that 
they did not do a quarter of the pictures placed under their names. But 
that answer does not oceur to him. He is young and too much overawed 
by gallery authority to entertain doubts. 

It will be asked at the start: How many pictures are there in the 
Rembrandt output? The Klassiker der Kunst volume contains 643 illus- 
trations of pictures painted by Rembrandt.! This is supposed to be a more 
or less critical list based upon Doctor Bode’s work, but it does not give all 
the attributed Rembrandts.? A general list would run well over a thou- 
sand, but for the purpose of argument a thousand or less will answer us. 
Now I have before me a list of some seventy or more pupils and followers 
of Rembrandt who worked under him and at different times produced pic- 
tures in his style or manner. There were probably two dozen more— 
imitators, copyists, and forgers of his manner—who could be mentioned, 
but, again, seventy pupils will be enough to argue with. By diligent com- 
pilation from catalogue, lexicon, and biography I cannot find for all of the 
seventy a thousand extant pictures. It seems that there are more pic- 
tures in existence by Rembrandt alone than by his seventy pupils and two 
dozen followers and imitators put together. 

That, I submit, is something that excites suspicion at the start. What 
paralyzed the hands of the Rembrandt pupils that they could not paint as 


1Tt has an introduction by Professor Adolf Rosenberg, and the third edition, Stuttgart, 1908, is edited by 
Doctor W. R. Valentiner. It will be referred to herein under the initials ““K.K.” A supplementary volume con- 
taining over a hundred more Rembrandts was issued by Doctor Valentiner in 1921, and is referred to herein as 
“K.K.Supp.” 
2 Smith, in his Catalogue Raisonné, gave 646 Rembrandts; Wurzbach, in his Niederldndisches Kiinstler-Lexikon 
gives about 600; Bode lists about 550, but a revision of the Bode, with additions, is promised. 
1 


2 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


many pictures as the master? Granting them a superfluity of shiftless- 
ness, laziness, illness, and early death, still could not the seventy, in their 
lifetime, put out as many canvases as the one? If they did produce their 
modicum of pictures, what has become of them? Is it possible that their 
works have gravitated toward the master, that his name has absorbed 
them, and that to-day it is by the addition of their works that the Rem- 
brandt wuvre has grown to seven hundred or a thousand pictures? The 
figures seem to indicate as much. But they should be examined a little 
more closely. 

There were some talented pupils who, after leaving the Rembrandt 
studio, finally developed individual ways of seeing and painting, and pro- 
duced pictures that could not be confused with those of the master. 
These pupils have the largest number of pictures on my lists. For exam- 
ples, Bol has about eighty-seven; Maes about seventy-seven; Flinck, sixty- 
three; Eeckhout, fifty-five; Lievens, forty-seven; De Gelder, thirty-six; Vic- 
tors, thirty-four; Koninck, twenty-eight; Bernaert Fabritius, twenty-five; 
Poorter and Santvoord, twenty each. The nearer the pupil’s work to that 
of the master, and the easier its possible appropriation to the master, the 
fewer the canvases left standing under the pupil’s name. ‘This carries on 
until finally we come to those who worked closely in the Rembrandt man- 
ner, and find that such excellent painters as Backer and Carel Fabritius 
have only fifteen pictures apiece (counting in even the questionable ones) ; 
that Hoogstraten, pupil and close friend of the master, has only eleven; 
that other pupils, who may have helped Rembrandt as assistants in his 
shop, have even less—Drost and Ovens about eight apiece; Delfi half a 
dozen; Lavecg, Renesse, Heerschop, Horst, Van Vliet, Van der Pluym, 
two or three each. There are some at the end—Terlee, Kiehl, Ulenburgh, 
Wulthagen, Dullaert, Beyeren, and others—who have nothing at all left to 
their account. 

I have purposely omitted the name of Gerard Dou, because he is the 
exception that proves the rule. Only in his early years did he follow - 
Rembrandt, and even then his method was smooth and timid. The bulk 
of his work could never seriously pass as that of Rembrandt, because too 
small, and trifling. It never was allocated to Rembrandt except in a few 
instances. The peculiar lack of adaptability of Dou’s pictures as Rem- 
brandts results in there being to-day over two hundred of them stand- 
ing in Dou’s own name. Some of them are undoubtedly by Dou’s pupils, 
for he-in his way became a small lodestone, drawing pictures to himself 
after the manner of Rembrandt. 

Now there is nothing unprecedented in these circumstances or these 


THE REMBRANDT PICTURES 3 


figures of Dutch art. Sixty years ago the same tale could have been told 
of any famous master in Italian art—the same in kind if not in degree. 
Before the advent of Crowe and Cavalcaselle, the names of Raphael, 
Leonardo, Giorgione, Titian, Correggio, Bellini, had scores of pupil-pictures 
attached to them. Leonardo was given the best works of Solario, Gianpie- 
trino, Ambrogio, Marco d’Oggiono; Giorgione was held responsible for the 
pictures of Cariani, Romanino, and Torbido; every sweet-faced Venetian 
Madonna by Cima, Catena, or Rondinelli was hung around the neck of 
Giovanni Bellini; and Titian fathered many a Pordenone, Bordone, or 
Lotto without protest. Critical study—practically begun by Cavalcaselle, 
developed by Morelli, and in present times carried on by Berenson, Venturi, 
and others—has changed all that. The great have been shorn of the 
impedimenta put upon them by the foolish, and to-day Giorgione and 
Leonardo have to their names not more than a dozen pictures apiece, while 
Raphael, Titian, and Correggio have had their holding of pictures greatly 
reduced. There are still too many school pieces passing current under the 
name of Bellini, but they are suspect, and will eventually find their rightful 
painters again. 

Very little of this close study has been applied north of the Alps, in the 
German, Dutch, or Flemish schools. There has been much spilling of 
printer’s ink, much writing about the Dutch painters, for example; but, 
for the most part, it has been indiscriminate laudation, or promotion, or 
compilation, signifying nothing. The critical sense seems to have been 
lacking. ‘The Latins aver that the Anglo-Saxons and Teutons have a way 
of seeing with their ears—that they dig up documents, prepare pedigrees 
and prices, discourse about signatures, and grow pathetic about domestic 
events that never happened; but they do not see the picture as the esthetic 
expression of a human being. The individuality of the painter escapes 
them, they are misled by a mannerism, see an original in an imitation, 
and accept a ducal certificate in place of a painter’s statement with the 
brush. It is an old story. 

This lack of critical perspicacity is not the only reason for the gathering 
of Netherland pictures about great names. There are other and more 
potent causes. Every discoverer o an old Dutch picture in a garret hopes 
that it will prove a Rembrandt, and his wish, being father to the thought, 
eventually results in the picture being “‘expertized,” and, at the least, 
“attributed” to Rembrandt. Every gallery director would like to add 
another Rembrandt to his catalogue, because the name lends prestige to 
his gallery. Every collector of pictures must have a Rembrandt as the 
clou of his collection. With such a positive demand, commerce, naturally 


+ REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


enough, seeks to supply the necessary Rembrandts. That they do not 
exist or are not in the market is not too discouraging. The man of com- 
merce starts in and sells the works of the pupils as that of the master. 
Anything that is forced in the high lights and pot-black in the shadows, 
anything that is plastered or kneaded or thumbed in the surface, anything 
that is muddy in grays or browns or dull reds may serve his purpose. If it 
have a Rembrandtesque look, no matter how superficial that look, it may 
pass with the uninitiated. For a picture is largely sold on expert testimony, 
a signature, whether true or false, is generally considered proof positive, 
and a tale of a picture having lived many years in an English baronial hall 
is more than satisfying. 

This promiscuous mixing of master and pupils, of course, leads to end- 
less confusion. One gasps over the strange gyration of the one and gropes 
for the personalities of the others. The pupils are not only confused with 
the master but with themselves. One tries in vain to draw a sharp division 
line between Bol and Flinck or seeks to separate the output of Carel Fabri- 
tius from that of his brother or from Vermeer of Delft. And the distor- 
tion of history in it, the rank injustice to the pupils, are little short of out- 
rageous. The works of the pupils are given to the master, which do not 
enrich him but make the pupils poor indeed. Their best pictures—only 
those that approximate the master’s in strength, only those that will pass 
as Rembrandts—are taken. What is left to the pupils is practically the 
discard of weak or unfinished or unsuccessful works. And they, poor souls, 
are judged and written down by this discard. Their degradation is even 
used as argument to prove that they never could have done anything 
strong or noble or exalted. One ventures to question an alleged Rem- 
brandt, thinking it a Bol, and is immediately met by: ‘When did you ever 
see Bol do anything as strong as that?”’ There is no answer, because there 
is nothing very strong left under Bol’s name, and to put forth the questioned 
Rembrandt as a Bol is to assume the premises in dispute. 

But any one who is at all familiar with painting, ancient or modern, 
knows that almost every painter at the beginning of his career puts out 
some pronounced work. In the shop he learns the method of the master, 
and, with the quickness and glibness of youth, applies it to some concep- 
tion or view-point of his own. It is these early pictures that bring applause 
from the student-body in the shop and encourage him to go on. Possibly 
for a number of years after he has left the shop and set up for himself he 
continues to produce good work. It may be that he develops an individ- 
uality of his own, as did Backer, Horst, or Drost, but more often he repeats 
himself, grows hard and mannered, or soft and pretty, or thin and weak, 


THE REMBRANDT PICTURES 5 


as Maes or Bol or Victors. Popular applause or money considerations may 
lead him into painting the pot-boiler, or he may go astray, following some 
strange god who happens to have the worship of the people at that moment. 
In any event it is the strong things of his brush that are taken from him 
and the weak things that are left behind. Appropriation usually concerns 
itself only with things of marketable value. 

Ingenuity in fitting the appropriated work into the Rembrandt euvre 
has not been wanting. Lievens, Dou, Backer, Bol, DeWet, Salomon 
Koninck came to the Rembrandt workshop when the master was young 
and working in his gray manner, with rather precise drawing and painting. 
They learned the early manner, produced the gray picture, and their works 
are to be found among the early-dated pictures of Rembrandt. On the 
contrary, Maes, Drost, De Gelder came to the shop late, learned the looser, 
freer handling, the warmer coloring and darker shadow of the aging mas- 
ter, and their pictures are to be found among the late Rembrandts. A 
certain superficial consistency in the product has thereby been established 
which has proved greatly misleading. A tight piece of drawing with a 
niggled surface, by Koninck, is perhaps explained as “‘Rembrandt in his 
early days before he found himself,’ and a piece of muddy color ineffec- 
tually handled, by Van der Pluym, is declared to be ‘“‘Rembrandt when he 
grew old and his hand failed him.” There is the Lesson in Anatomy of 
1632 to suggest that Rembrandt never did or could do a niggled surface, 
and the Five Syndics of 1661 to indicate that his hand never did fail him; 
but internal evidence of this kind seems to have little weight against a 
tradition passed down the ages and smoothly repeated by interested par- 
ties. People believe what it pleases them to believe. 

But nothing, perhaps, is so welcome or carries such belief to all parties 
concerned as a date and a signature. There we have the final cachet of 
the master and let no dog of a critic bark in question of it. “Rembrandt 
fecit 1642.””> What more would you have? Could anything be stronger as 
evidence? Or, we might add, more fetching as a sales-producer? One is 
confronted with it as the final and the knock-down argument for genu- 
ineness. People quote the signature and date, as they might holy writ, 
but some of the sceptical look at them as though they carried no convic- 
tion. Perhaps they should be examined a little coldly and from a detached 
point of view. 


CHAPTER II 
THE SIGNATURE 


HERE is evidence in abundance, and to a point of saturation, to prove 
that the works of Rembrandt’s pupils have been “‘signed up” falsely 
and sold as Rembrandts. This is common knowledge to people familiar with 
the history and criticism of art. All gallery directors, collectors, and deal- 
ers know about it and smile over it. The catalogues and guide-books and 
art histories are full of it. No one attempts to deny it. Yet the average 
reader may not know about it, or may think it the special pleading of the 
iconoclast, so for his benefit I may recite a few instances that have been 
recognized alike by Christian and pagan. 

Bol has been perhaps less pilfered from than some other pupils of Rem- 
brandt, such as Drost and Carel Fabritius, but let us for a moment 
examine some of the things that have happened to Bol’s belongings. In 
the Munich Gallery there are two portraits (Nos. 609 and 610) with the 
false signature of Rembrandt upon them. They passed for many years 
as Rembrandts. They are now given back to Bol by the director of the 
gallery because it is too apparent that they are not by Rembrandt. Even 
the uncritical came to see that much. In the Hermitage at Petrograd 
there are two Bols—in 1913 listed and catalogued as Bols—that still bear 
the false signatures of Rembrandt. They are the Portrait of a Young 
Man in Black and the Portrait of a Young Man in Blue. Here are four 
portraits by Bol that were appropriated to Rembrandt and falsely signed 
with his name, that could not stand up under critical fire. How many 
other Bols are still doing service as Rembrandts is suggested by the Bol 
list which appears farther on in this volume, but just here I may continue 
with the Bol portraits by quoting a Rembrandt authority. 

Doctor Abraham Bredius has done his share to increase the Rembrandt 
ewuvre by pushing in a newly discovered gem by the master from time to 
time; but he is sometimes given to severe criticism of other people’s dis- 
coveries or holdings. I have spoken of two Bols signed as Rembrandts, 
at the Hermitage, but Bredius, in The Morning Post (London) of March 
22, 1914, says there are five Bols in the Hermitage that have the false sig- 
natures of Rembrandt upon them. And again in the ae Maga- 


zine, vol. 20, p. 340, he says: 
6 


THE SIGNATURE 7 


** Portraits by Bol have very often been signed with false Rembrandt signatures. I recall 
the two beautiful portraits at Munich known as Flinck and Madame Flinck—when the 
Madame Finck was cleaned the Rembrandt signature came off and the original Bol signa- 
ture appeared. In the English Rembrandt exhibition a picture known as The Orator, 
belonging to the Duke of Northumberland, was found by all the connoisseurs to be a fine 
specimen by Bol. In the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, are the following: a splendid very Rem- 
brandtesque early portrait of Bol himself; another portrait (No. 854) formerly attributed 
to Rembrandt; another (No. 883) with a false signature, ““Rynbrandt f. 1641” (probably 
oe Be alone is genuine); and a fourth (No. 856), also with a false signature, ‘“‘Rem- 

randt f.” 


Elsewhere Doctor Bredius has said that Bol, Backer, Victors, and others 
all did portraits ascribed to Rembrandt. It is not denied by gallery direc- 
tors or gallery catalogues. 

Doctor Hofstede de Groot has said that: 


The pupils are unknown, either because they never signed their works or because their 
signatures have been scraped out and replaced by Rembrandt’s name. 


Doctor Martin, director of The Hague Gallery, in commenting in The 
Times (London), March 3, 1921, on Doctor Valentiner’s supplementary list 
of one hundred or more Rembrandts (extra volume Klassiker der Kunst, 
Leipsic, 1921), says: ‘Being convinced that many of these pictures are not 
genuine Rembrandts, and being under the impression that the work of 
Rembrandt, as many of the scientific critics see it, gives a false idea of 
what this genius really did and was, I tried to point out what kind of 
knowledge we really have about his art... .’ If I am not mistaken, 
Doctor Bode is also on record (in some one of his publications that I have 
not at hand) to the effect that Rembrandt has many questionable can- 
vases attached to his name. 

Bredius, Bode, and Hofstede de Groot are considered the great Rem- 
brandt authorities at the present day. Between them they have done 
more to add to the number of Rembrandts in the ewvre than any others. 
It is a satisfaction to know that occasionally even they have their doubts. 
Doctor Bredius has even insisted that the celebrated Elizabeth Bas por- 
trait at the Ryks Museum in Amsterdam is by Bol, but the museum 
authorities will not go so far as to accept that attribution. It is one of 
their best pictures, and can and does pass as a Rembrandt. But they do 
not hesitate to write off other works in the museum and declare them 
“‘wrongly. signed.”” The catalogue, for instance, specifies the Study of a 
Head (No. 2025) as “wrongly signed”’ with the name of Rembrandt; the 
picture by Lievens, Samson and Delilah (No. 1458), is stated to have “‘the 
wrong signature”’ of Rembrandt upon it; the picture called St. Nicholas 
Eve (No. 113) is “wrongly signed” as a Rembrandt, and the Head of a 


8 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Little Boy (No. 1461 A) is signed by both Lievens and Rembrandt—the 
latter having “‘retouched”’ it. 

Almost every gallery catalogue in Europe will repeat this story. The 
famous Dresden Gallery has three pictures (Nos. 1576, 1580 B, 1580 A) 
that the catalogue frankly declares “falsely signed” with the name of 
Rembrandt. They are now relegated to the Rembrandt School. The 
catalogue further declares that the Rembrandt signature on the Gold 
Weigher (No. 1564) is ‘‘ probably false”; that the Landscape (No. 1575), 
long given to Rembrandt, is by Aert de Gelder; that the Rembrandt in Red 
Mantle (No. 1573) is probably by Flinck; that the Entombment (No. 1566) 
is a school piece signed with Rembrandt’s name. The Portrait of an Old 
Man in the Metz Museum and the Workers in the Vineyard at the Staedel 
Institute are again “falsely signed’’; the Man in Armor in the Cassel 
Museum has a false signature; the Backer Portrait of an Old Lady in 
the Wallace Collection has a false Rembrandt signature, and the St. Paul 
in Prison at Stuttgart has two Rembrandt signatures upon it (probably 
through fear that one would prove insufficient), and both of them false. 

A sober inquiry might easily degenerate into farce with all these 
spurious signatures, admitted to be spurious. Those who planned decep- 
tion by means of a signed name—and they were not all forgers, as we shall 
presently see—usually had wit enough to cover up their tracks, to erase 
one signature before putting on another; but sometimes they were careless 
or forgetful. At the Brussels Museum, for example, there is a picture 
(No. 196) that still has upon it the two signatures of Van Goyen and Cuyp. 
And three dates !! 

Now if the old legal maxim regarding evidence, “falsus in uno, falsus 
in omnibus,” should be applied just here we should be justified in pushing 
aside and absolutely discarding all evidence of signatures and dates. But 
the word “false”’ is susceptible of explanation and must be rightly inter- 
preted. An ordinary interpretation would suggest that a false signature is 
a forgery, put on the canvas by some other person than Rembrandt, per- 
haps long after the painter’s death, and for purposes of deception. Un- 
questionably forgery with deception as an aim has been resorted to, more 
or less from Rembrandt’s death to the present time, but it will not account 
for all the signed Rembrandts that are not by Rembrandt. Many of the 


1Tn this connection I may record what has been recorded before me, that the Rembrandt signature takes 
twelve different forms. It is usually just ““Rembrandt f,” but a number of times it is “Rembrant”’ without 
the “d.”’ Several times the second “‘r” is omitted. The initialing varies from ““R” to “R van Ryn,” “R.H.L.,” 
“R.H.L.van Ryn.” Then the signature drops to an abbreviation “Rem,” “‘Rembd,” and once to ““C.Rembant.”’ 
If these signatures are true, then Rembrandt did not know how to spell his own name. And why the great 
variety? It is very suspicious, to use no harsher term. 


THE SIGNATURE 9 


pictures were probably signed by Rembrandt himself, or by his order, or 
under his supervision and assent. He no doubt signed scores of pictures 
painted by his pupils, and sold them from his shop as shop work—he 
himself having put nothing upon them but the signature and date, 
with perhaps a parting lick or rub here or there. This is the special 
meaning of the word “ false.”” Many of the signatures were true in the 
sense that Rembrandt signed them or authorized them signed, but they 
were “ false”’ in the implication carried that Rembrandt had painted the 
pictures. 

Rembrandt is perhaps not to be blamed for this practice. It was a 
custom of the times—a custom long established. It cannot be doubted 
that Giovanni Bellini’s name was placed upon many pictures emanating 
from his bottega, not as evidence that he himself painted them, but as a 
guarantee that they came from his shop and were good works of art. 
Even with works that he himself designed and executed, he was probably 
helped in part by his pupils and assistants. Tintoretto, Paolo Veronese, 
Tiepolo—every master of note in Italy—utilized the skill and energy of 
his pupils in putting forth work from his shop. Rubens at the north 
followed the same practice. He sent in 1638 to the King of Spain at 
Madrid a large consignment of pictures (now catalogued under Rubens’s 
name), constituting what is known as the ‘‘Metamorphoses Series.” In 
his memorandum accompanying these pictures he occasionally notes: 
“Done by the best of my pupils” or “Touched by my own hand.” There 
was no pretense that he did more than make sketches from which his pupils 
worked up the pictures. The output of Van Dyck, Velasquez, Hals— 
not to refer again to the Italians—shows that they also availed themselves 
of pupils’ help and allowed school work to pass out of their shops under 
their names. 

There is no way of explaining or understanding the Rembrandt euvre 
except on the hypothesis that much of it was done in the Rembrandt shop, 
done at different times by thirty or forty different hands, and that the 
output was duly signed and sold by the master. Besides Sandrart, who 
knew Rembrandt from 1637 to 1641, has made positive record of the 
fact that Rembrandt’s many pupils paid him one hundred florins apiece 
annually, “exclusive of his profits from their pictures and engravings, which, 
in addition to his personal gains, brought him in some two thousand to 
twenty-five hundred florins.”»! The quotation is rendered by Brown to 
read: “while the pictures and plates they executed after his designs were 
a source of profit to him to the amount of two thousand or twenty-five 

1 Quoted in Michel, Rembrandt, vol. I, p. 196. 


10 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


hundred florins annually.’’! It probably never occurred to Rembrandt 
that there was anything questionable about signing and selling his pupils’ 
works. To repeat, it was a custom of the times. 

Copies of pictures also were undoubtedly made in the Rembrandt shop 
by pupils, and these were signed and sold like the rest of the shop work. 
There is evidence of this in certain well-known copies that have come down 
tous. For example, the Sacrifice of Isaac, at the Munich Gallery, is a copy 
of the same subject at the Hermitage, and on the back of the copy is the in- 
scription, ‘“‘Rembrandt verandert en overgeschildert 1636”’ or “Rembrandt 
changed and repainted, 1636.’ There are some notes in Rembrandt’s 
handwriting on the back of a drawing in the Berlin Cabinet, relating to the 
sales of copies of his pictures by the hands of some of his pupils, and in each 
case a sum of money is mentioned.? With several other pictures there are 
inscriptions on the back saying that they have been “retouched” by 
Rembrandt, showing that the practice of making copies, and the master 
giving them a final touching, was not uncommon. 

Of copies, old or otherwise, done outside of the school, there were a 
great many. Before the invention of photography, painters, who were 
travelling and studying the pictures in Continental galleries, copied mas- 
terpieces of all sorts—made the copies for their own use and study. These 
pictures, now darkened by time and looking like genuine old masters, have 
been brought out of garrets and studios and sold as “replicas.’’ Occa- 
sionally the original is lost and the copy alone survives, which then 
becomes more convincingly genuine than ever, because there is no com- 
petitor in the field. 

And, of course, there have always been Rembrandt imitations and for- 
geries, some of them clumsy enough and others cleverly presented by 
painters of some technical ability. It would be easy to point out half a 
dozen of them in the European and American galleries, but no useful 
purpose in the argument would be served by doing so. They will sooner 
or later find their proper level. 

As for the Rembrandt signature, whether upon original, school-piece, 
copy, or forgery, it is not vital to my inquiry, because I hope to prove or 
disprove the picture by its internal evidence. The signature should be 
ignored because the commercial motive behind its use is too obvious. It 
was used freely as a trade-mark, brought large prices, and in consequence 
was falsely used. On the contrary, I mean to accept the signatures of 
pupils upon their paintings, because as trade-marks they had little or no 
commercial value, and hence there could be no motive in forging them. 

1 Brown, Rembrandt, p. 67. 2 Brown, ibid., p. 67, foot-note. 


THE SIGNATURE 11 


The name of Drost or Horst or Renesse upon a canvas meant nothing to 
the picture trade. 

A few, however, of the pupils became very popular as painters, their 
pictures were in demand, and their signatures meant something in guilders. 
There is in Vienna a picture of a Scholar, accepted by Rembrandt authori- 
ties as by Rembrandt (K.K., p. 14), which has the initials of Dou upon 
it. Neither of them painted the picture, but Dou’s name was attached 
to it at one time for a money consideration, just as now the picture is put 
down to Rembrandt, with a consequent enhancement of the value. Bol, 
Flinck, Maes, and Dou had temporary fame, which possibly led to an 
occasional forgery of their names; but usually their signatures are genuine 
and may be accepted if they agree and confirm the internal evidence of the 
pictures themselves. No signature on a picture is to be accepted if it 
denies the premises that the picture itself sets up. The signature is too 
easily put on to be considered very seriously. 

This applies with even greater force to the etchings than to the paint- 
ings. Almost any one could forge a signature on a copper plate with 
perfect assurance that it would never come off and that it would be very 
difficult to detect as a forgery. The name and date on the etchings are 
even less reliable as evidence than on the pictures. Once more we shall 
have to ignore them, and, for that matter, the etchings themselves, unless 
they confirm by their face evidence. Heretofore they have been used by 
critics, dealers, and collectors as corroboratory evidence by their mere 
existence. That is to say, a picture by Rembrandt is proved genuine by 
the fact that there is a Rembrandt etching of the same subject. The pic- 
ture confirms the etching and the etching the picture, and thus two wrongs 
can be made to prove a right. For example, the unsigned Rembrandt in 
the Wallace Collection, London, known as the Good Samaritan, has been 
proved a Rembrandt because an etching of the picture exists and has upon 
it the signature Rembrandt inventor et fecit 1633. A third state of the 
etching has a different inscription upon it which Mr. Hind thinks is con- 
temporary, though “almost certainly not Rembrandt’s own.” This second 
inscription reads Rembrandt f. cum privil 1633. Doubt has been thus 
thrown on the etching. Seymour Haden suggested that it might be the 
work of Bol, but Mr. Hind is satisfied that the etching is the work of 
Rembrandt, though he is bothered to “explain the comparatively niggling 
execution.” 

Now, if the picture of the Good Samaritan could be placed side by side 
with the Return of the Falconer, a signed Simon de Vlieger in the Ryks 
Museum, Amsterdam, it would be seen at once that De Vlieger did both pic- 


12 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


tures. A comparison of the pictures, side by side, not being possible, one 
has to resort to photographs, but even the photographs will bring con- 
viction. There is no doubt about De Vlieger’s doing the picture of the Good 
Samaritan. As for the etching, it agrees quite perfectly with De Vlieger’s 
etching, called Le Bourg (Dutuit 9), as regards composition and the use of 
picturesque sagging houses with door arches; it also has analogies in the 
well and its sweep, in typical figures, in trailing sprays of foliage, in distant 
landscape. But the execution of the Good Samaritan etching is finer and 
more “‘niggled”’ than Le Bourg. Mr. Hind argues that Rembrandt did 
the plate with unusual fineness, because he was reproducing his picture 
and wished to give every detail. But would not that argument apply with 
equal force to De Vlieger? Neither Rembrandt nor De Vlieger did the etch- 
ing. It was probably done by some minute working etcher-engraver, after 
De Vlieger’s picture, and the dog and barrel added by a later hand. At any 
rate, here is the illustration of how a questionable picture is substantiated 
by a questionable etching—the one proving the other to the confusion of 
the truth. 

The etchings have been in dispute for the last hundred years, because 
of their varying styles and contradictory appearances. Like the paintings, 
they are an omnium gatherum of the work of many etchers—pupils, friends, 
contemporaries of Rembrandt, who forced the relations of black and white 
on their plates and thus produced the Rembrandtesque look. Bartsch 
listed 375 etchings under Rembrandt’s name, Wilson gave 369, Dutuit 363, 
Blane 353, Middleton 329, Striter 280, Michel 270, Seidlitz 260, and so on 
down the line. Seymour Haden and Legros, both of them excellent 
etchers and knowing the material very well, were more conservative, Legros 
allowing only 71 etchings with a ““‘maybe”’ of 42 others. A critical exami- 
nation of the etchings in connection with all the etched work of the time 
would materially reduce Legros’ figures. 

A large number of the so-called Rembrandt etchings are trifling, badly 
done, and unimportant. They are not worthy of Rembrandt or any other 
etcher of rank. An astonishing thing about them is that they are so differ- 
ent from the Rembrandt pictures. Aside from the portraits there are 
precious few analogies. There are in the etchings scores of single beggars. 
But none whatever in the paintings. The etchings of landscape are low- 
lying scenes about the Amsterdam meadows; but the paintings of land- 
scapes are almost all open country with high tablelands or mountains. 
The biblical scenes and genre subjects are different in type and composition 
from those in the attributed paintings. There are no analogies even in the 
celebrated etchings, such as the Three Trees and the Hundred Guilder print. 


THE SIGNATURE 13 


It is impossible to see Rembrandt of the Night Watch, the Lesson in 
Anatomy, the Syndics of the Cloth Hall, in such an etching as the Hundred 
Guilder print. 

But it is not my intention to attempt any reconstruction of the Rem- 
brandt etchings at this time. I shall deal with them herein only as they 
relate to the authenticity of the paintings. I have referred to them merely 
to suggest that they are as badly confused as the paintings, and that their 
value as art or as evidence is determinable only upon their internal story. 
The drawings are in the same category. The whole output—pictures, 
sketches, and plates—that goes under the name of Rembrandt is more or 
less suspect, and the evidence, documentary, signatory, or otherwise, that is 
relied upon to substantiate it is too confused by fraud, cupidity, and mis- 
understanding to carry weight. One can do nothing but lay it aside, or at 
least hold it in abeyance, while the work itself is examined with such skill 
and patience as can be commanded. 

The method of examination, as I have already suggested, will be a 
mental, zsthetic, and technical analysis of each picture, and its assignment 
to any one painter will be based upon the analogies of thought, feeling, and 
execution to be found in the body of the painter’s work. Many pictures 
will be left unassigned, because there are at present no existing analogies 
obtainable. But perhaps the method may be made apparent at once, in 
one phase of it at least, if we use it to examine the collected euvre of the 
Rembrandt shop. 


CHAPTER III 
THE WORKSHOP 


HERE are in existence sixty-four or more supposed portraits of 

Rembrandt, said to be done by himself, nearly all duly signed and 
accepted as belonging to his work. The Klassiker der Kunst volume, to 
which I have referred, contains photographic reproductions of them, and 
almost all the Rembrandt authorities I have quoted sponsor them. A pic- 
ture here and there may be doubted, but in the main the Rembrandt 
portraits are held to be genuine works by the master himself. 

At the start one gasps a bit over the number. Why should Rembrandt 
paint himself so many times? Because he was poor and could not afford 
models? All artists are traditionally poor. And presumably every one of 
them at some time has painted himself in the mirror. There are two or 
three portraits each of Titian, Rubens, Raphael, Van Dyck, and other 
painters, done by them perhaps for academies or galleries or royal patrons. 
But sixty-four! That is so unusual that it gives one pause. 

When you come to look over these portraits another extraordinary 
thing begins to develop and take on proportions. The sixty-four are all of 
the same sitter, the same model, seen at different ages. There is a differ- 
ence in pose, in light, in color, in costume, in handling, but the sitter is 
identical in them all. But no two of them look quite alike. The Titian- 
Rubens-Raphael portraits show the same person and the same point of 
view in each, but in the Rembrandts the variation is marked. Each one 
of them is seen in a different way from the others. 

If one should go behind the easels of a portrait class in a modern art school 
of, say, sixty-four pupils, and should see, one by one, sixty-four paintings 
being made from the model on the stand, he would see sixty-four portraits 
of the model, but no two of them would be quite alike. The personal 
equation would cause each student to see and emphasize certain things 
that the other students would not see or emphasize. There would be a 
general likeness to the model in all the portraits, but with a special 
variation in each one of them. 

Now that is exactly and precisely the tale of the Rembrandt portraits. 
In the sixty-four likenesses (eliminating the factor of age), Rembrandt is 


fat-faced, thin-faced, round-faced, square-faced. His eyes are close to- 
14 


THE WORKSHOP 15 


gether, wide apart; he is square-eyed, round-eyed, open-eyed, squint-eyed. 
His nose is bulbous, flat, straight, crooked; his mouth is large, small, turned 
up, turned down; his lips are thin-edged, coarse-edged, and not edged at 
all. He has the expression of a rich man, a poor man, a beggar man, a thief; 
he is wise-looking, foolish-looking, sad-looking, drunken-looking; he grins, 
he roars, he scowls, he weeps. And so on. The variety ends only with 
the sixty-fourth portrait. No two of them are the same or even so much 
as repeat one another in non-essentials. 

Could any one looking into a mirror see himself, or wish to see himself, 
in such variety of aspect? The average person has difficulty in seeing 
himself completely in one way; could even a transcendent genius—and 
Rembrandt certainly was one—see himself in sixty-four ways? Is not 
genius in all the plastic arts remarkable for the singleness, rather than the 
multiplicity, of its view-point? Is there more than one point of view with 
Michelangelo or Leonardo or Giorgione or Velasquez or Holbein? Do 
we not recognize a new picture by Titian or Delacroix or Corot, because we 
have seen each of them do that very thing, in that very way, dozens of 
times before? Genius is just as limited in literature as in art. All the 
plays of Shakespeare, of Goethe, or of Moliére are conceived each in the 
same spirit and brought forth in the same manner. If one should read 
aloud extracts from any one of them, would we have difficulty in recogniz- 
ing the writer? Genius in its point of view is singular and unique, not 
varied or vacillating or contradictory. 

I shall come later to the manner of doing these sixty-four portraits and 
show that no one paints (any more than he writes) in sixty-four different 
ways or styles, but at present I am concerned only with the view-point and 
the model. The Rembrandt portraits should be explained by saying they 
are the product of pupils—different pupils working over a period of perhaps 
thirty years, working from a model that stayed on in the shop and grew 
old with the pupils that came and went. The portraits are for the larger 
part merely study-heads, given sometimes with a fancy cloak and cap 
introduced, but more often merely a study-head, done for practice in the 
portrait class. The poorer work was probably scraped out or lost in the 
shuffle of time, while the better heads were kept in the shop as show pieces, 
and were finally signed with Rembrandt’s name and sold as part of the 
shop perquisites belonging to the master. 

Was the model Rembrandt himself? Possibly. He was perhaps a 
striking-looking person, and there is no reason why he should not have 
sat for his classes again and again. As a matter of economy such a course 
might have appealed to him. Besides, there is some more or less accept- 


16 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


able evidence from the etchings, and from studio gossip handed down, that 
the model was Rembrandt. But there is an element of doubt about it. 
Aside from the portraits the same face appears in some of the pictures 
attributed to Rembrandt, but probably done by his pupils. The figure at 
the foot of the cross in the Raising of the Cross at Munich is an illustration 
to the point. If the picture were painted by Rembrandt is it probable 
that he would have put his own likeness in the face of the man trying to 
raise the cross? Believer or unbeliever, would he care to figure in such a 
despicable réle, even in a picture? If the figure and face were that of a 
mere model, or were painted in from memory by a pupil, we could readily 
understand it. Perhaps such was the case, and the pretty story of Rem- 
brandt’s face on canvas is a mere fiction. But whether it is or is not 
Rembrandt’s self that appears in the portraits and pictures is matter of 
no importance in the present argument. Iam not concerned with it except 
to recognize that, whether Rembrandt or not, the person that posed did 
so merely as a model. 

Not Rembrandt alone but his whole family seem to have been dragged 
into paint and made part of the Rembrandt tradition. The tale is now 
well established in art history that he painted his father, mother, brother, 
sister, wife, mistress, son, not once merely, but each of them many times. 
The pictures are tagged with the appropriate names and offered as the 
pictorial proof of the reconstructed Rembrandt family. In the Klassiker 
der Kunst volumes the father appears in fifteen pictures, the mother in 
twelve, the brother in seven, the brother’s wife in five; the sister, who is 
pretty, appears thirteen times; the wife, who is prettier, twenty times; the 
son twenty-two times, the mistress thirteen times. They are all said to 
be done by Rembrandt, and for the most part are thus signed. And they 
are as different one from the other in point of view as the so-called Rem- 
brandt portraits of himself. 

Once more one marvels at the variety of view and concludes that this 
is a repetition of the class work with Rembrandt as model. Whether 
they were members of Rembrandt’s family or mere hired studio employees, 
they were used by the class as models both in and out of the studio. 
Gerard Dou painted the father and mother a dozen times. The pictures 
are now listed among the Dou paintings. Bol and Drost and De Gelder and 
Carel van Savoy painted the brother in various compositions, and others of 
the school painted the so-called wife and the mistress. ‘They were models. 

And these models (or members of Rembrandt’s family—as you please) 
were painted by the pupils in exactly the same way that the Rembrandt 
portraits were painted. Why should Rembrandt paint his father and 


THE WORKSHOP 17 


mother again and again in the same study heads, or his wife in the same 
poses and costumes? How could he see them each time differently and 
vary the appearance, as in the supposed portraits of himself? For exam- 
ple, at Cassel there is a splendid portrait of Saskia done in 1633, wherein 
she appears refined, dignified, even aristocratic. She is a lady (K.K., 
p. 127). At Dresden there is another portrait of Saskia, done in the same 
year, wherein she is merely a smirking little fishwife. She even looks some- 
thing worse (K.K., p. 126). How could Rembrandt see his wife in two 
such opposed ways in the same year? When we come to consider the 
technique of the two pictures, we shall see that they vary even more widely 
there than in likeness, but I am speaking now only of the view-point. It 
is different in each picture of her. Where come in the singleness and sim- 
plicity of genius in this medley of varying view-points? These portraits 
of the family are just as inexplicable as the portraits of Rembrandt himself, 
unless we assume them done in the shop by different pupils at different 
times. They were probably a part of the shop output, were signed and sold 
to whoever would buy, and the cost of running the shop thereby provided. 

The matter of shopwork carries on still further. There seems to have 
been a set series of subjects given out by the master to his pupils. The 
portrait head was more in demand in seventeenth-century Holland than 
any other art-product. Hence there was the portrait class that produced 
the so-called heads of Rembrandt and his supposed family which we have 
been considering. There was also a class in the nude. It painted 
standing figures, afterward called Andromedas, seated figures, known as 
Hendrickjes because they were coarse, or Dianas because they were refined, 
recumbent figures that became Danaés, and moving figures that were called 
merely Susannas or Bathers or Nymphs. The nude was the crucial test in 
the shop then, as it is now. Those who could carry through and produce 
something worth while were comparatively few. Again, the bulk of the 
work was scraped.out or discarded, and only exceptionally would a good 
nude survive, be hung upon the wall, and later on signed and sold. The 
result was and is that the Rembrandt euvre in nudes is by no means so 
large as in heads. Those that remain to us vary in view-point, as do the 
heads, and each one is done differently from its neighbor. They must be 
considered the work of different pupils at different periods in the shop. 
Rembrandt did not do them. He was not a pupil but the master, and had 
no need, at that time, to go on doing practice scales. He probably did 
nudes when under apprenticeship to Lastman, and they may have been 
sold from the Lastman shop as Lastmans. At any rate, they do not now 
exist as Rembrandts, with one or two possible exceptions. 


18 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Still another class of picture was turned out of the Rembrandt shop. 
This was the historical picture. The heads and the nudes were merely 
direct work from the model, in which the pose of the model determined the 
placing upon the canvas, but the historical picture called for design, com- 
position, pictorial arrangement. It required imagination and invention, 
and could not be produced by merely following copy. It seems that Rem- 
brandt had a number of subjects—biblical, mythological, historical—that 
he gave out from year to year to each oncoming group of pupils. The 
Rembrandt e@uvre to-day contains some five Abraham’s Offerings, six Bath- 
shebas, six Davids, seven Josephs, five Samsons, seven Tobiases, three 
Flights into Egypt, six Holy Families, five Good Samaritans, with Jacobs, 
Peters, Pauls, and Pilates in twos and threes, besides thirty-nine pictures 
in which Christ appears as the central figure. In addition there were 
Minervas lost in thought, Bellonas keyed up in armor, Oaths of Claudius 
Civilis, Lucretias, Sophonisbas, Prosperpinas. 

How did all this ruck of historical work, remote and unrelated to 
Holland, happen to come from the Rembrandt shop? Probably because 
Rembrandt thought such themes would stimulate the imagination and 
develop the pictorial skill of his pupils. It was excellent studio practice, 
sanctioned by tradition. He probably got the tradition in direct line from 
his master, Lastman. It will be remembered that Lastman was trained in 
Italy under the influence of Elsheimer and Caravaggio. He brought back 
from Italy not only Caravaggio’s scheme of forcing lights against darks 
which he may have imparted to Rembrandt, but he also brought back with 
him the Italian tradition of the historical composition. This came down 
to Rembrandt and was passed on to his pupils as art tradition. It was the 
influence of Italy upon the North, of which Northern art furnishes so many 
illustrations. 

What was the need or use for these historical and scriptural composi- 
tions, aside from practice work in the shop? ‘The chief demand of the 
Dutch people was for the portrait, the regent picture, the small genre 
pictures showing domestic life, and occasionally a landscape or a marine. 
It will be remembered that there was practically no demand for religious 
pictures in Protestant Holland. The Reformation, fresh in every one’s 
mind in Rembrandt’s day, had put its ban on pictures in church decora- 
tion, and the Dutch churches got on without them. How can it be sup- 
posed that in the face of such conditions Rembrandt went on painting 
Abrahams and Josephs and Tobiases by the dozens and Christ pictures by 
the twoscore, repeating over and over the same theme! 

In Italy the Peruginos and Botticellis and Bellinis painted Annuncia- 


THE WORKSHOP 19 


tions and Madonnas Enthroned again and again, but every one of them 
was ordered for a church or a monastery or a chapel, and was done as a 
bread-winner as well as a labor of love and art. But is there any record 
or tradition or even gossip to indicate that Rembrandt ever received an 
order from a church or religious body? Was any one of his pictures ever 
painted for or placed in a church or chapel? The only pictures that I can 
recall as remotely approaching a church order are the Passion series at 
Munich. They were painted at different times for Prince Frederick Henry 
of the Netherlands. What use he made of them I do not know. The six 
pictures were painted over a period of years, and their internal evidence 
shows them done by Van der Pluym, Eeckhout, and other pupils. 

Of all the religious and historical pieces put down to Rembrandt’s name 
he did not do more than half a dozen, perhaps not that many. His pupils 
did almost all of them, though Rembrandt may have inspired them, in- 
structed in them, perhaps, in some cases, planned and retouched some of 
them. The themes were examples in art set for his pupils to do. When 
they did them well he put them on the wall, like the other shop products, 
signed them with his name as the shop trademark, and sold them as oppor- 
tunity offered. 

After the pupils left the shop and set up for themselves, some of them 
went on with the tradition and painted the old subjects, for lack of 
imagination to think of anything new. Van der Pluym seems an illus- 
tration of this, for about all we know of his work is a series of biblical 
subjects repeated with variations. Some of the apprentice work was too 
individual to be signed as shopwork, and to this day continues under 
the pupils’ names. In looking up what is left of pupils like Bol, Koninck, 
Eeckhout, one finds the usual sprinkling of Scipios, Abrahams, and Isaacs, 
Solomons and Shebas, Tobiases and Angels. This was merely a continuance 
down the line of the teaching and example in the Rembrandt shop—the 
Italian tradition handed on. 

But the pupils’ work that can and does pass as that of Rembrandt was 
probably largely done while they were still pupils. It is interesting to 
check this up by dates. For example, Tobias and the Angel, in the Louvre, 
signed as a Rembrandt, was done by Ferdinand Bol, as I shall hope to 
establish later. It is dated 1637. That is the time when Bol was a pupil 
of Rembrandt. Is it mere coincidence that master, pupil, picture, and 
date should come together with such accord and harmony? If so, we shall 
find the coincidence repeating itself many times with Rembrandt’s pupils. 


CHAPTER IV 
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE 


N the final analysis a picture explains or proclaims itself, be it master- 
piece, school-piece, copy, or forgery. The evidence of its origin, or of 
its quality, lies on the face of the canvas, if we are shrewd enough to see it 
and read it aright. It is not possible to read Van der Pluym into Rem- 
brandt if we know the uncertainty of the one and the certainty of the 
other. That does not mean that Rembrandt was always and infallibly 
certain. Every one knows that even genius nods at times, and may even 
blunder in execution, but the blundering of Rembrandt is not the blunder- 
ing of Van der Pluym. Some note of the master will ring true, even in 
his most discordant work, some touch of his genius will be apparent in his 
most indifferent performance. Die Feen is not Tristan, but it is Wagner, 
and Werther is not Faust, but it is Goethe. 

With signatures, documents, and tradition found to be contradictory 
and unreliable, there is nothing left us but to take up and examine the 
pictures themselves. I shall endeavor to examine each picture in three 
ways—mentally, emotionally, and technically. From these I hope to gain 
a knowledge of the personality and artistic quality of the painter who 
produced the picture. With that established, the putting together of a 
group of pictures of like personality and quality will follow as a matter of 
course. A painter with his output may be thus established, and whether 
we call him by one name or another or merely give him a number is matter 
of no great importance, except as one stickles for the final truth of history. 
The three methods of testing a picture need merely be summarized here, 
because they will be continually used in making up the lists of pictures to 
follow and can then be seen and judged for their practical working worth. 

The mentality of an artist can be as readily determined in a picture as 
in a book. If all the biographical accounts of Michelangelo, Titian, 
Rubens, Velasquez, Tiepolo, Goya were swept out of existence, we should 
still be able to read the minds of the masters in their pictures. There is 
and can be no question about their outlook upon life, nor about the depth, 
breadth, and quality of that outlook. It is peculiarly a view-point, and is 
so distinctly a way of looking at things that mind and eye work together 


and are not to be entirely separated. This is an important distinction, 
20 


THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE 21 


since artistic thinking is inevitably associated with artistic seeing. Mere 
bulk of brain never made an artist. Bacon, Kant, Spinoza had the brain 
but lacked the eye. Ideas came to them by what they heard, not by what 
they saw. ‘They were thinkers, not seers; they had not the plastic sense. 
The mentality of the painter, therefore, is a pictorial mentality, with an 
outlook that sees the world in forms, colors, lights, shadows, surfaces. 
Within that limit there is an abundant field for discovery, imagination, 
creation, revelation. And an exhaustless variety. We shall know the 
mentality of the artist by the truth that he reveals, by the types that he 
creates, by the themes he picks and chooses, by the outlook he affords us, 
by the height at which he flies. 

Bronzino and Salviati never rose to the height of Michelangelo and 
he never sank to their level. Not one of Rembrandt’s seventy pupils ever 
had his mind or eye or imagination or creation. Yet each pupil within 
himself proclaimed in his pictures his own peculiar mind, his outlook, his 
point of view. The ones with trivial minds proclaimed their triviality, the 
weak ones displayed their weakness, the limited ones their limitations. 
Good, bad, or indifferent, each after his kind, spread himself upon the sur- 
face of his canvas. And each mentality, whether weak or strong, deep or 
shallow, brilliant or dull, is apparent in the pictures to-day. The pupils’ 
canvases can be as easily read as Rembrandt’s. The test for mentality 
will apply to the foolish as well as to the wise. 

Thinking and seeing, as I have suggested, are closely allied in artistic 
conception. It is impossible to separate them or give precedence one to 
the other. But there is another element needed to make up the complete 
pictorial image. That I may call the emotional element or, as it is fre- 
quently named, the zsthetic element. It is the offspring of pictorial seeing 
and thinking. But, again, one cannot separate it from mentality without a 
wrench. And yet it may be, and often is, entirely absent from pictures. 
A botanist wandering along the Alpine slopes at St. Moritz may see com- 
pletely and think profoundly over a bank of mountain pinks, yet remain 
unmoved emotionally by its beauty. His interest would perhaps be purely 
scientific, and facts of leaf or petal would be the beginning and end of his 
inquiry. Even if he painted them the result would be a scientific drawing 
rather than an artistic presentation. A painter, on the contrary, seeing the 
bank of pinks as a mass of color on a barren hillside, in a cold white light, 
would perhaps be thrown into emotional ecstasy by its singular beauty. 
He would feel the beauty of it keenly, and if he took up brushes and painted 
the bank of pinks, something of his mood of mind, his feeling or emotion 
or ecstasy would get into the picture and perhaps produce a color-poem. 


22 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


That is where and how the esthetic, as opposed to the merely scientific, 
would make itself apparent. 

Now this emotion is created in the artist by a human face or a burst of 
sunlight, or half a dozen figures in an interior, or a glimpse of the sea, as 
readily as by a bank of flowers. It is a part of his artistic make-up that he 
should respond by an emotional reaction when in the presence of beauty of 
any kind. And the emotion is as readily shown on the canvas in one form 
as in another. Again, it is part of the artist’s make-up that he should be 
able to show it. The extent of it, the truth and rightness and poetry of it, 
the conviction and moving power of it, will in almost every case be the 
measure of the artist’s greatness or his littleness. It is perhaps the most 
subtle of the three tests which I have established, and, as I have said, it is 
impossible to separate it wholly from the mental test; but it is in its way 
finally determining and crucial. Without it you can have the clever 
painter who sees like the camera and paints like the botanist, but you will 
miss in his product what you perhaps call soul or feeling, and I call 
emotion. 

Rembrandt was profoundly emotional—the most profound, perhaps, of 
all the Northern painters. I do not mean just now emotion in the sense of 
pathos or sadness or ecstasy or delight, but, rather, that which he so often 
expressed in the ordinary portrait—intense human sympathy and feeling. 
There he stands quite alone. None of his pupils ever reached up to him. 
He was universal, world-wide in his sympathy, where they were merely 
local or perhaps wholly unresponsive. Their pictures and his show, each 
for itself, the depth or the superficiality of the emotional element. To 
distinguish it in their canvases may require more patience than is necessary 
in the mental or the technical test, but it is there for those who can see and 
is a large factor in rightly judging art. 

The third test—that of technique—is the most obvious of all, and, for 
that reason, perhaps, may be thought the most convincing. It is founded 
upon the painter’s personality in actual brush expression, and stands out 
more prominently than the mental or the emotional qualities. As every 
man’s mind and eye work in a way peculiar to himself, so his hand, answer- 
ing the command of his mind, moves in a manner distinctly his own. What 
is known as the personal equation dictates this. The brush is as auto- 
graphic as the pen. Each painter has his individual way of painting, and 
that, when it shows upon the canvas, is a very telltale utterance. He 
could paint in half a dozen ways, as a man might write letters in half a 
dozen styles of penmanship, but in actual practice neither of them thinks 
it worth while. The man who resorts to half a dozen styles is usually the 


THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE 23 


imitator or the forger. The great painters—Titian, Velasquez, Rubens, or 
Frans Hals—have only one style, though within that style may be sey- 
eral manners or variations or changes that take place with the years. 

That is to say, that a way of doing things with the brush soon becomes 
a formula in the painter’s mind. A method of painting, as a method of 
writing, is the result. This method is repeated, reproduced, reiterated in 
each new picture, with variations and exceptions, to be sure, but, never- 
theless, with continuity and consistency. At different periods in the 
painter’s life there are advances or developments. An early manner that 
is somewhat small and cramped, perhaps, gives way to a broader manner 
that is free and flowing; and, at the end, a last-stage manner may appear 
that is indicative perhaps of physical or mental decline. But still there is 
continuity under the changes. 

Each painter has his peculiar formula and method, be it pronounced 
and positive or subtle and hidden. Even the pupils and followers and 
lesser men of the paint-brush are not without it. However little they may 
have to say, they say it in their own way, because they cannot very well 
say it in any other way, unless they are deliberately imitating, copying, 
or forging. And they can all be traced by the trail of their brush—Lievens, 
De Gelder, and Van der Pluym, as readily as Rembrandt. 

That is, provided the trail is still intact. This is an important proviso, 
because many of the old pictures, whether by master or pupil, have been 
so scandalously cleaned that the trail of the original brush is dim or per- 
haps not apparent. The larger and the better the canvas the worse off it 
usually is as regards its surface. A director of the Ryks Museum said to 
me some years ago that if I could see Rembrandt’s Night Watch in the 
cleaning-room without its glazings I would be astonished. I answered that 
I had seen it in that condition and that it looked somewhat like a beefsteak. 
Many of his other pictures have been flayed by cleaning, ironed flat, or 
rubbed smooth, so that his handling is now not to be completely judged 
from them. When the surface of a work has been thus flayed by careless 
cleaning, it is usually handed over to a second-rate painter in the cleaning- 
room, who “‘restores”’ the surface by painting a new one of his own. This 
is a disturbing element that must be reckoned with. You may be trailing 
the restorer’s brush rather than Rembrandt’s. 

Aside from the trail of the brush, there are other technical peculiarities 
of the individual that may be picked up and used as clues in determining 
the authorship of a picture. I mean such things as a predilection on the 
part of the painter for a certain type of face, or color-scheme, or form of 
composition, or massing of light and dark; or a certain way of dragging 


24 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


loaded high lights or rendering textures. There are, too, peculiarities of 
drawing as shown in the eye, mouth, nose, ear, and hand—particularly the 
hand, because it is usually summarized, generalized, and repeated by for- 
mula. These peculiarities, if indulged in freely by the painter, result in 
what is known as a “‘manner’’—a set way of saying things with the brush. 
It is readily seen, in high or low degree, in the work of almost every painter, 
and is sometimes, but erroneously, referred to as the painter’s “style.” 
Half of Van Dyck’s “style,”’ as the word is used, refers merely to his man- 
ner of posing a figure or turning a head, or doing a hand. These manner- 
isms, while they by no means add to the picture, are, nevertheless, very 
positive clews to the identity of the painter and are eagerly seized upon by 
experts and connoisseurs. They are often the first clews that come to one. 

The predilection or liking for certain subjects, forms, colors, arrange- 
ments very often leads to repetitions of the same theme, or motive, varied, 
to be sure, so that it is not exactly a replica, but nevertheless a striking 
over again of the same note. Pupils of Rembrandt—Eeckhout, Horst, Bol, 
Koninck, Maes—were much given to repetitions in types, forms of com- 
position, schemes of light and dark. The composition of the Danaé (K.K., 
p. 176), at the Hermitage (it is by Horst, not Rembrandt) was merely 
varied in the figures to produce the Isaac Blessing Esau at Belton House 
(K.K., p. 172), and slightly varied again to produce the David’s Charge to 
Solomon of the National Gallery, Dublin (reproduced in The Burlington 
Magazine, vol. 20, p. 258). The repetition of spinners, readers, and apple- 
peelers by Maes or angels by Bol or Holy Families by Van der Pluym are 
other illustrations to the point. All artists—painters, writers, musicians— 
are prone to repeat a success. It is not a virtue in any of them. On the 
contrary, it results quickly in paucity of imagination and hardness of 
method. But my point at the present moment is that these repetitions are 
important clews leading to the identity of the painter when the authenticity 
of his pictures is in question. 

The three tests—the mental, emotional, and technical—should be used 
together, inasmuch as they are so closely woven together and interdepen- 
dent. Where one fails another may come to the rescue; where all three 
work in unison a reliable inference as to authorship may be drawn. The 
analogy of one picture to another leads naturally to the association of pic- 
tures in groups, and in that way, as I have already suggested, the person- 
ality and identity of the painter in his pictures can be established. From 
two signed pictures by Van der Pluym I have been able to put together 
more than twenty other pictures which I have listed under his name. 
They establish his artistic personality—not a great one, by any means, but 


~~ = =. 


\ ‘Pleig vuuolA ‘Ado 


LONVUEINAY SIS SLANVYENAY -LONVYUANAY ‘1 


1) Uleysua} oar] 


)) SNAAUTI % 


YUALSIS S.LANVUEINS 


THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE 25 


one that is distinct and marked, even in its limitations. The casual student 
who goes no further than an examination of the photographs of the Van 
der Pluyms will, I think, perceive that much. 

Of course, the only right way to gather up these various clews of Rem- 
brandt, or his pupils, is to study the pictures themselves at close range. A 
grouping together of photographic reproductions often proves helpful and 
suggestive, but it should not be the final reliance. It may be worth while 
to indicate the help (and also the limitations) of the photograph by insti- 
tuting a comparison between two portraits reproduced in the Rembrandt 
volume of the Klassiker der Kunst Series. ‘The portraits are placed by the 
editor side by side on page 56.'| They are practically of the same size and 
shape and similar in pose, costume, and light. Rembrandt’s sister is said 
to be the sitter. There is not a scrap of evidence in existence that tells us 
anything about the appearance of his sister, but there is little doubt that 
the sitter is the same in both pictures. Rembrandt is, of course, said to 
have painted them both. Let us look at them closely—with an enlarging 
glass, if necessary—and not be stampeded at the start by a superficial 
likeness. 

Perhaps, on the contrary, the absence of likeness (when you know the 
sitter to be one and the same person) may cause you surprise. How does 
it happen that they look so differently in the same year (1632)? Did not 
Rembrandt have the facility of catching and holding a likeness of his own 
sister better than that? Was his eye off-focus, or his mind playing him 
pranks, or did he have a vacillating mind and an untrue eye? Look closely 
at them, passing quickly from one to the other, and do you not see that 
they never could have been done by the same person ? 

The Liechtenstein portrait at the left is profound. The face is an 
epitome of all that is typical, sensitive, noble, refined in Dutch girlhood. 
It is a wonder and a marvel and becomes more wonderful and more mar- 
vellous the longer you look at it. Keep on looking at it for five or ten 
minutes and let it unfold to you its own depth, subtlety, and penetration. 
No one but a great master could do such a work as that. Now turn to 
the Brera portrait at the right and do you not instantly feel a great loosen- 
ing of the mental grasp, a falling down in the mental conception? The 
personality of the sitter now appears shallow. She is merely an empty- 
headed girl posing for her portrait. She epitomizes nothing, stands for 
nothing, reveals nothing but a superficial exterior, such as any Dutch girl 
from the burgher quarter might show. The emptiness of the conception, 


1 For convenience of reference a photographic reproduction is inserted in this volume, but it is not so satis- 
factory as the Klassiker der Kunst photographs. 


26 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


the lack of thought or of reflection in the painter, even the lack of com- 
prehensive vision is too apparent for further argument. That alone might 
be sufficient to convince one that the two portraits were not painted by the 
same man. But let us go on to the second test. 

Look at the Liechtenstein portrait for the emotion in it—the feeling of 
the painter. Do you not feel the intense sympathy that accompanied the 
painter’s complete understanding of the model before him? Has he not 
fathomed the depths of that gentle personality and then bodied forth his 
findings with tenderness and truth? Can you not see that the serious 
sadness of the face was not alone with the model but also with the painter ? 
Regularity of form and feature is not here in any classic sense; the model 
is not beautiful after any Greek formula; but here is the eternal womanly, 
the profoundly human. The painter saw and felt that way, was moved 
emotionally that way, and the portrait as he painted it is the result. 

Turn again to the Brera portrait and see, if you can, any of these 
qualities or emotions I have attempted to describe. The painter of it had 
no feeling or emotion about it. He asked the model to pose, and he 
painted her as rapidly, as thoughtlessly, and as unfeelingly as if she had 
been a brass pot or a table-cloth. As a result you have not a human being, 
with a heart and a soul, but merely a studio model posing for so much an 
hour. The whole portrait is such a palpably superficial affair that perhaps 
you are willing to concede that the painter of it could not possibly do the 
Liechtenstein portrait, that they must be by different hands. But not 
yet. Remember that both the pictures are signed with Rembrandt’s name 
and duly dated in the same year, 1632. We shall have to bring up other 
evidence. Let us try the third, the technical test. Brush-work, color, 
textures—and they are most important items—are absent in the photo- 
graph. We shall have to do without them and rely on drawing. That 
will tell us something, if not everything that we could wish for. 

Look at the Liechtenstein portrait, beginning with the doing of the 
hair, and contrast it immediately with the hair in the Brera. portrait. Do 
you notice the difference in the lightness, delicacy, and texture, in the way 
it fits the head and reveals the skull? Look at the rounded, beautifully 
modelled forehead of the Liechtenstein head, as contrasted with the flat 
cardboard forehead of the Brera head. Compare the eyes, that are so 
expressively the windows of the soul in the Liechtenstein picture—how 
beautifully they are drawn !—compare them with the shoe-button eyes in 
the Brera picture. Neither of the portraits has a regular nose, but how 
beautifully the one is done and belongs to the face and is a part of it, where 
the other is simply something pasted on as an afterthought. Then come 


THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE a7 


down to the mouths—the one with exquisite lines, perfect drawing, and a 
world of expression, the other merely a slash of paint with a slurred lower 
lip, and the whole devoid of expression or even meaning. Carry on into 
the contours of the faces, and notice how perfect and how beautiful the 
oval in the one and how hard and masklike in the other. Notice how dif- 
ferent the joining of the heads to the necks and the necks to the bodies. 
Notice again the difference in the painting of the white at the throat, and 
also of the embroidery of the cloaks. 

Go back now and look at the beautiful distribution of light and shade 
in the Liechtenstein portrait, and how perfect it is as light and shade! 
Compare it with that of the light and shade in the Brera portrait, which 
is too high on the face and not low enough on the neck, giving the appear- 
ance of an artificial light thrown straight on the face itself. Once more, 
and finally, look at the atmospheric setting in the one and its absence in the 
other; look at the right placing of the figure in the oval of the one and the 
wrong placing of it in the other. 

Perhaps you are persuaded now to think that the same hand did not 
do the two portraits? You would be justified in arriving at that negative 
conclusion without going so far as to say positively who did the portraits. 
My own conclusion is that Rembrandt did the Liechtenstein portrait, and 
that his friend and follower, Jan Lievens (or Flinck), did the Brera por- 
trait; but perhaps it is proper to add that I arrived at that conclusion not 
by studying the photographs, but by studying the original pictures many 
times and over a period of many years. 

I arrived at my final decision by a diligent comparison of the Liech- 
tenstein portrait with every other work by Rembrandt, and finding that it 
agreed in every way and took its place in his total output without jar or 
disturbance. And, negatively, I arrived at the same decision by finding 
that it would not agree with the work of any other painter in the school or 
in the Netherlands. The decision that Lievens (or Flinck) did the Brera 
portrait was reached in a like manner. 


CHAPTER V 
REMBRANDT THE MASTER 
1606-1669 


HE facts of Rembrandt’s life need not be recited here. The present 

inquiry concerns itself with the painter and his pictures rather than 
with the man and his career.! Besides an idea of Rembrandt, gathered 
from hither and yon and woven into an embroidered biography, such as 
Michel has put forth, is precisely what is not wanted in this study. I wish 
to establish a conception of the painter solely from his pictures, letting 
them tell what tale they may. The tale should agree fairly well with the 
literary tradition of Rembrandt’s life, but whether it does or does not is 
immaterial. Rembrandt, who has had volumes written about him, may 
be treated in the same way as his pupil, Van der Pluym, who has had little 
or nothing written about him. If reliance is placed wholly on the internal 
evidence of the pictures themselves there should be no injustice to either 
master or pupil. 

The forty or more pictures on my list that can be certainly assigned to 
Rembrandt agree in declaring him to be a type of genius such as I have 
indicated in the preceding pages—particularly in the pages given to the 
comparison of the Liechtenstein-Brera portraits. Mentally he seems to 
have possessed singular poise, amazing aplomb. From start to finish noth- 
ing in stubborn circumstance or unhappy experience was able to change or 
even vary that mental poise. He was always serene, lofty, undisturbed by 
local happenings, as though he foresaw the future and could afford to rest 
quietly and smile. He had the Goethe-Leonardo mind and saw the world 
from mountain tops. In that far outlook there was no hint of restlessness, 
excitement, or hurry; no need for hysteria, pathos, or anguish, no room for 
flippancy, buffoonery, or grotesqueness. The outlook was comprehensive 
but serene and of a most astonishing simplicity. 

One looks at the heads in the Lesson in Anatomy or the Five Syndics, 
or at such single heads as the Coppenol at Cassel, or the Six at Amsterdam, 
and wonders how it was possible for Rembrandt to see so simply and yet 
so comprehensively. The more one looks the more one wonders. It is 


1 Those who wish the facts should read Vosmaer, Rembrandt, Sa Vie et ses Giuvres; Neumann, Rembrandt ; 
Baldwin Brown, Rembrandt, A Study of his Life and Works; Bode, Complete Work of Rembrandt ; Michel, Rem- 
brandt, Sa Vie, son Giuvre et son Temps; and (for its art criticism), Fromentin, Les Maitres d Autrefois. 

28 


REMBRANDT THE MASTER 29 


amazing that any mentality could so summarize and synthesize humanity. 
The eye sees and the mind comprehends everything, and then recreates it, 
in an axiomatic form the truth of which is self-evident. The result is an 
epitome of the whole race—something that appeals to all humanity and is 
universal in its scope. It is this large grasp, this completeness of under- 
standing, given back to us in the simplest of formulas, that constitutes 
- Rembrandt’s initial greatness. It is what is usually called his “‘breadth of 
view,” and is apparent in everything he undertook. It cannot be mistaken 
for the view-point of his pupils. It is just as different from theirs as day 
is from night. The clarity of the one is as apparent as the indefiniteness 
of the other. 

His sympathy is quite as broad, quite as far-reaching. He is no 
mere mental machine that sees like a camera and records like a printing- 
press. Everything is transformed, transfused, transmuted into something 
new and strange by passing through the alembic of his emotional person- 
ality. The model that Lievens (in his Brera portrait) could make nothing 
of but a mere model, in the hands of Rembrandt (in his Liechtenstein 
portrait) became a symbol of the sincerity and earnestness of all woman- 
kind. And what a rare vision of beauty he thus unfolds! How closely the 
beautiful is associated with the capacity to feel! And how far removed it 
may be from mere regularity of form or feature! Not one of Rembrandt’s 
types has more than a passing comeliness of form, and many of them were 
probably called ugly in the life, but how the painter’s sympathy brought 
beauty into their faces! This is what is known in esthetics as “‘the beauty 
of the ugly’ —something that was long deemed a paradox, but does not 
Rembrandt give it proof? 

In addition to the comprehensive eye, the revealing mind, and the 
emotional spirit Rembrandt had as certain a hand as ever handled a brush. 
And apparently he painted, as he saw, with the greatest simplicity. The 
elaborate attempts to explain and reconcile his technical methods—to show 
why and how he was smooth of brush in one picture and rough in another; 
why he brushed lightly here or coarsely there, or kneaded and dragged else- 
where—are all founded upon the supposition that he painted the thousand 
pictures making up the eure. Not all the wisdom of the ages could recon- 
cile the view-points or the brush-handlings of those pictures. They were 
done by fifty men; and Rembrandt—well, he did not do more than fifty 
out of the thousand. Those pictures that are his beyond dispute do not 
contradict each other, and, as I have said, are very simply done—so simply 
that, once more, one is amazed at the results. 

At first Rembrandt was a little precise in drawing, a little cool in color, 


30 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


and rather broad (for him) in distribution of light. That was his “gray 
period.”” The surfaces at that time were smoothly handled, dragged rather 
thinly, rubbed with the thumb just a little to produce strong modelling 
on the forehead, or the nose, or the jaw. Later on, that is, from about 
1635 to 1645, he developed a warmer scheme of colors and a looser drawing 
and handling. He brushed freely but flatly and with great certainty in 
drawing and texture. That was his “‘golden period.” His flat handling 
continued and was emphasized as he grew older and advanced in art. No 
doubt he often used a palette knife or his thumb, but he continued to get 
effects, not by kneading and pitting the surface, but by the flat layer of 
pigment dragged or plated into place. An excellent illustration of it is the 
Jan Six portrait at Amsterdam, than which a more beautiful piece of 
painting was never done in any school. This was about 1654. In 1658 he 
continued with this flat brushing in the large portrait of himself in the 
Frick Collection. The Five Syndics of 1661 and his own portrait (in the 
Carstanjen Collection) of 1668 show it again, but all three of these pictures 
also indicate that Rembrandt was not wholly satisfied with the flat stroke, 
and evidently believed that more forceful results could be obtained by 
kneading, pitting, modelling the surface. 

This method marks his latest canvases, such as the Jewish Bride and 
the Family Group at Brunswick, and produced what has been called 
his faltering old-age style. But nothing could be more erroneous than that 
idea. Toward the end, like Titian and Velasquez, he saw things in larger 
masses, in wider relations, and merely enlarged his handling to match his 
seeing. His latest pictures are the final development of the largest seeing 
and the most effective rendering ever known in the Dutch School. The 
Jewish Bride and the Brunswick Family Group form the Rembrandt 
climax, not only mentally and emotionally but technically. It is difficult to 
say exactly how they were produced, for they are loaded, dragged, kneaded, 
thumbed in a dozen different ways to produce different effects in the sub- 
jects portrayed. One gasps over the results. They are marvellous. And 
they are perfect. They anticipate all the paint-manipulation of the last 
250 years. Rembrandt is a greater technical wonder in the Brunswick 
Family Group than in the Saskia or Coppenol at Cassel. 

His greatest limitation was undoubtedly his handling of light. He has 
been called its master, and so he was when he used it as a means of model- 
ling a head, but when he used it as an illumination for a large picture it 
soon became apparent that he was the slave of his method. The strength 
of that method lay in the sharp juxtaposition of blacks and whites. The 
lights were enforced by strong contrast with the shadows. That, in the 


REMBRANDT THE MASTER 31 


case of a portrait head where a high light on the forehead was brought out 
by dark reliefs at the sides of the head, was very effective; but when the 
attempt was made to apply this method to a large canvas like the Night 
Watch it proved insufficient. Each head in the group had to be sep- 
arately lighted, with the consequent result of spottiness on the canvas. 
And there was no central illumination over all. No wonder the Night 
Watch was counted a failure. It looked like a night scene illuminated by 
spotlights, but in reality it was intended for the sortie of a shooting com- 
pany in full sunlight. 

The Night Watch, more than any other picture, seems to confirm the 
tale told by his pictures, that Rembrandt was a portrait painter and little 
more. He could not do the historical picture in a satisfactory way, and 
probably after some trials gave it up. I have gone over the figure pictures 
assigned to him, again and yet again, in the hope that I should find in 
some one of them the trace of his mind and hand, but I have been almost 
completely disappointed. The dramatic, the pathetic, the spectacular, the 
grotesque things set down to him are the pictures of pupils in which he had 
no more than a guiding voice—perhaps not even that. There is doubt 
about even the few compositions that can be set down to him. Perhaps 
there was no need, no demand, for him to do the historical canvas. Por- 
traiture was the theme of the hour. And portrait painting alone was 
sufficient to place him at the head of the Dutch School and keep him there. 
For, contrary to accepted opinion, I venture to think that a great portrait 
painter is the rarest and in many respects the most exalted of artists. The 
whole vision of the world and the problem of the race can be as well shown 
in the portrait, nay, better, than elsewhere. The distinction to this day 
of Titian, Velasquez, and Rembrandt is that they were the great masters 
in this field. The nobles of Titian, the kings of Velasquez, the burghers of 
Rembrandt—there is nothing like them elsewhere in art. 

Rembrandt’s pupils never reached up to him technically any more than 
they did mentally or emotionally. It is almost impossible to confuse him 
with them because he is always distinctly himself, decisively personal, and 
almost always right. Even in the pictures where he fails—the Night 
Watch, for example—his failures have a blaze of glory about them that 
was never vouchsafed to the pupils, talented as many of them were and 
producing excellent pictures, as many of them did. They had not his 
genius nor his restraint. Their lack of restraint is very apparent in their 
pictures. 

By that I mean that the method of light-and-dark and the method of 
brushing taught by him were exaggerated by the pupils—pushed into 


32 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


extravagance. The sharp contrast of dark with light was primarily 
intended for the relief of certain forms or surfaces, but when driven too 
hard it resulted in violence, falsity of value, abruptness in transition. 
Maes, in his Old Woman Cutting Her Nails, in the Metropolitan Museum, 
is a good illustration. The high light on her nose is so surrounded by black 
shadows that it looks like a piece of gray putty pasted on the face. Again 
and again we meet with these violent juxtapositions of black and white in 
the works of the pupils. But not with Rembrandt. The nearest approach 
to it is in the Night Watch, which was not wholly by his own hand, and is 
now so restored and changed by repaintings that it cannot fairly be used 
as an illustration. The Lesson in Anatomy, the Five Syndics, the Jan Six 
—all of his absolutely certain work—has none of this violence. The tran- 
sitions are most delicate, most subtle, most amazing because of their 
restraint. 

The scores of study heads—done with a slashing brush and uncertain 
drawing—put down to Rembrandt in the Klassiker der Kunst volumes are 
quite beside the mark. They are the sketch work, or better, of many 
pupils—work that has been preserved and handed down to us because it 
has a certain bravura, a dash that belongs to the hasty sketch. Some of 
them have strength and vitality about them, some are attractive memo- 
randa, and some of them again are mere bluster with the brush—tfull of 
sound and fury, signifying nothing. They are almost all of them done 
with a heavily loaded brush, with dragged high lights, and ribbed or pitted 
surfaces. In shadows they are violent and in color usually muddy. These 
are the very features that are supposed to be peculiarly Rembrandtesque, 
but nothing could be further from the truth. Rembrandt did not have to 
resort to the spectacular or the bizarre. He was serene—serene with his 
brush as well as in his conception. Genius does not bluster. 

Rembrandt, for all his influence and following in art, stands alone like 
every other genius. He is unique. The more we study his pictures the 
greater he becomes. To confuse him with his pupils is to becloud him and 
miss him. The more reason that for not having pictures put down to him 
that he never painted. But the wide difference between master and pupils, 
the impossibility of confusing them if they are rightly estimated, will 
become apparent as the pictures one by one are taken up and given to 
their respective painters. 


CHAPTER VI 
PICTURES BY THE MASTER 


HE list of Rembrandt pictures which follows does not pretend to 

completeness. Some of the works attributed to Rembrandt are in 
private hands, where I have not been able to see them, and probably some 
of those I have seen and for the moment have put down as shop or school 
work, should be returned to the master. But completeness in the sense 
of listing every scrap and vestige of both master and pupils is not so 
important as adequate representation. To gain a right conception of 
Rembrandt, Bol, Eeckhout, or Horst it is not necessary to run down and 
catalogue every indifferent head or half-finished picture of their doing. 
For Rembrandt the fifty pictures that follow will give a comprehension of 
the man almost as well as a hundred. 

And the fifty are all that I can now definitely place to his name. I 
may say that it has been almost as difficult to reconstruct Rembrandt 
as any one of his pupils. Even with the few pictures assigned him there 
go some doubts. For example, the handling of the extraordinarily fine 
picture in the Frick Collection or the impressive Supper at Emmaus in the 
Louvre is somewhat different from the other pictures assigned to him. 
One can only surmise that at different periods, and with different subjects, 
he tried to vary or adjust his handling to the theme in hand. But still 
there remain doubts. It is useless to ignore them. They might better be 
frankly stated. For that reason both with Rembrandt and his pupils I 
have listed certain pictures tentatively—that is, with definite doubts 
that may or may not be cleared away hereafter. 


PICTURES BY REMBRANDT 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: THe Nicut WatcH 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed 1642, K.K.265', B.253*, Hanf.* * 
More properly a sortie of the Frans Banning Cocq Shooting Com- 


1 K.K. refers to the Klassiker der Kunst, Rembrandt volume, and the number to the 

paging. The supplementary volume is referred to as K.K.Supp. 
B. refers to Bode’s monumental folios and the number of the plate. 

3The abbreviation Hanf. refers to the Hanfstaengel reproductions of pictures in 
European Galleries, in volume form, under the general title: Die Meister werke, etc 

* Pictures marked with an asterisk are described and criticised in my New Guides to 
Old Masters in the volume corresponding to the city where the pictures are placed. 

33 


34 


AMSTERDAM: 
sIx 
COLLECTION 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


pany. Usually said to be Rembrandt’s masterpiece. Injured and 
repainted, but still a great picture. The handling of Rembrandt can- 
not now be adequately judged from it. 


SYNDICS OF THE CLoTH HALL 
Signed 1662, K.K.492-494, B.486, Hanf.* 


One of Rembrandt’s most successful group pictures. A late work 
with no indication of faltering or ineffective handling. 


ANATOMICAL LECTURE OF Dr. DEYMAN 
Signed 1656, K.K.437, B.450.* 


Ruined by fire and now merely a fragment. 


Tue Jewish BripvE 
Signed, date uncertain, K.K.487, B.538, Hanf.* 

Exactly in the manner of the Brunswick Family Group and 
agreeing with it in color, though the latter is the warmer in rose-reds. 


A supreme effort and vastly more wonderful technically than the 
Night Watch. 


MorTtHeER oF JAN SIx 
Signed 1641, K.K.257, B.280. 


PoRTRAIT OF JAN SIX 
Not signed, K.K.429, B.371. 


A perfect piece of work all through, and an excellent illustration of 
laying paint with the flat of the brush or the palette knife. 


ANSLO, THE MENNONITE PREACHER 
Signed 1641, K.K.259, B.282, Hanf.* 

An uninspired work, with a shade of doubt about its being a Rem- 
brandt. Backer did this kind of portrait-picture, notably in the Uiten- 
bogaert portrait at Amsterdam, and there is a suggestion of it in the 
Backer portrait of Francois de Vroude in this Berlin Gallery. Still, 
perhaps it is a Rembrandt done with no great verve or spirit. One 
misses in it Rembrandt’s matchless modelling. Assignment tentative. 


HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Not signed, K.K.409, B.437, Hanf.* 

Handled like the Frick Portrait of Rembrandt and the Jan Six at 
Amsterdam. A handsome portrait, but not entirely convincing as to 
its authenticity. Assignment tentative. 


JOSEPH AND PoTIPHAR’s WIFE 
Signed 1655, K.K.377, B.402, Hanf.* 

Heavily loaded, thumbed and dragged in the stuffs and high lights, 
a little hot in color. Much dabbing and dotting rather than sweeping 
strokes of the brush. The rose-red of the dress of Potiphar’s wife is 
exactly that of the central child in the Brunswick Family Group. 
Also the handling and drawing are the same. 


BERLIN: 
CARSTANJEN 
COLLECTION 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY THE MASTER 35 


REMBRANDT WITH THE MAHL STICK 
Not signed, K.K.479, B.506. 

Heavily loaded with pigment and dragged with a downward stroke 
on the scarf. The scarf is gold color, the cap white, the vest at the 
throat dull red, the face red. A powerful work and perhaps Rem- 
brandt’s own likeness and his own leer at the world, his art, and his 
failures. In his late manner, and agreeing with the Homer at The 
Hague. 


Portrait oF MAN 
Signed 1632, K.K.83, B.86. 


PortRAIT OF WoMAN 
Signed 1633, K.K.83, B.87. 

These two portraits are companion pieces, early Rembrandts, and 
probably done under the influence of Willem van der Vliet. The 
woman’s portrait has some affinity with a similar portrait at Berlin 
signed by Bol. Neither portrait shows Rembrandt to great advantage. 


CHRIST AND MAGDALENE 
Signed 1651, K.K.305, B.333. ; 

This is probably the same picture that Rembrandt’s friend, the poet 
Decker, said he saw grow beneath Rembrandt’s active hand. There is 
a suggestion of Titian’s Noli me Tangere in the arrangement of the 
figures. ‘The same model appears as the Christ in the Supper at 
Emmaus, in the Louvre. 


Famity Group 
Signed K.K.488, B.539. 

The central child is in rose-red, the mother is in red, at left are dull 
yellows. The bulk of the figures and the body of color are given with 
great force. It is a masterful piece of paint manipulation, and the 
latest, the very best, expression of Rembrandt’s technical method. It 
is his final statement with the brush, and in that respect his master- 
piece. 


PorTRAIT OF COPPENOL 
Signed about 1632, K.K.72, B.74, Hanf.* 


A profound portrait of a rather thick-witted man, exactly and 
rightly done in every way. In Rembrandt’s gray period. 


PORTRAIT OF SASKIA 
About 1638, not signed, K.K.127, B.150, Hanf.* 

The painter’s most brilliant portrait. It is radiant with color. 
Smoothly and easily handled and precisely drawn. 


Portrait or Youna WoMAN 
About 1636, not signed, K.K.204, B.182, Hanf.* 

None of these Cassel Rembrandts show loose drawing or handling. 
They are early, measured, orderly, and serene works. They have not 
the breadth or bulk of later pictures, such as the Five Syndics or the 
Jewish Bride, but there is no fault to be found with them. They are 
quite perfect after their kind. 


36 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


DULWICH: 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


HAMBURG: 
KUNSTHALLE 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PoRTRAIT OF BURGGRAEFF 
Signed 1633, K.K.88, B.96, Hanf.* 

The flesh is a little hot, the ground gray. The left eye iets than 
the right. The collar is cut through the white paint with a sharp 
instrument to make the lace pattern. Somewhat overcleaned. The 
supposed companion-piece at Frankfort probably not by the same 
hand. It is inferior to this Dresden portrait. 


SASKIA WITH RED FLOWER 
Signed 1641, K.K.246, B.264, Hanf.* 

Somewhat injured, but still excellent. The hands have been hurt, 
the shadow about the head is blistered and cracked, the fillet has been 
retouched, the hair repainted, and the face and mouth tampered with; 
but Rembrandt is still under it. Color rich red and gold. 


Portrait oF YounGc MANn 
Signed 1632, K.K.79, B.77. 


HoMER 
Signed in part 1663, K.K.466, B.524.* 

With a gold-colored scarf about the shoulders. Much dragged, 
thumbed, and kneaded, but with great effect in the mass. In Rem- 
brandt’s latest manner, agreeing with the portrait in the Carstanjen 
Collection at Berlin in breadth of view and handling. Probably part 
of a larger work and cut away from the original picture. 


LrEsson IN ANATOMY 
Signed 1632, K.K.69-71, B.55, Hanf.* 

“Rembrandt in his early manner, in a picture about which there is not a 
shadow of doubt. It was done by his own hand and should be accepted as a 
standard by which his early work should be judged. Notice that, while each 
head has an illumination of its own, there are no small spots and flickers any- 
where. The high lights, as also the shadows, are all large in area. Notice 
the flatness of the handling, the absence of lumpiness or modelled spots, the 
breadth of coloring, the absolute truth and simplicity of the drawing. . . .” 
—New Guides to Old Masters, The Hague, p. 89. 


Injured by cleaning, ironing, and some retouching, but still a won- 
derful work. 


PorTRAIT OF HUYGENS 
Signed 1632, K.K.79, B.76. 

A small, slight work for Rembrandt, and now hurt by too much 
rubbing in the hair, but it has the touch of Rembrandt in the drawing, 
especially in the forehead. 


PortTRAIT OF A MANn 
Signed 1635, K.K.203, B.116, Hanf.* 


The surface is smooth, though probably thumbed. The drawing 
and modelling quite perfect. The life of it is superb. 


Portrait oF OLD WomMAN 
Signed 1634, K.K.194, B.106, Hanf.* 
A picture of much force and emotional significance, but neither 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
HOLFORD 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
HAVEMEYER 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
ELLSWORTH 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
KLEINBERGER 
GALLERY 


NEW YORK: 
FRICK 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY THE MASTER 37 


mentally nor technically quite in the Rembrandt vein. The shadow 
is a little black, and the surface of the face rippled with paint to make 
wrinkles. It suggests the manner of Backer. The assignment to 
Rembrandt is tentative. 


A JewisH Rapsi 
Signed 1657, K.K440, B.469, Hanf.* 

Golden in tone, with fine luminosity in the shadows. 
surely brushed. Quite a perfect work. 


Easily and 


REMBRANDT AS AN OL_p MAN 
Not signed, K.K.402, B.433.* 


It is hot in the flesh and mealy in the surface, but it is too powerful, 
too certain, for any hand but Rembrandt’s. 


PORTRAIT OF JEAN PELLICORNE 
Signed about 1632, K.K.80, B.79.* 


PORTRAIT OF WIFE OF PELLICORNE 
Signed 163?, K.K.81, B.80.* 


Early works, and, like the Van Beresteyn portraits, possibly influ- 
enced by Thomas de Keyser. 


PortrAIT OF MARTEN LOOTEN 
Signed with monogram, 1632, K.K.77, B.72. 
An early, fine-grained, and not very strong Rembrandt. 


PortrRAIT OF VAN BERESTEYN 
Signed 1632, K.K.74, B.82. 


Portrait OF Wire OF VAN BERESTEYN 
Signed 1632, K.K.75, B.83. 
Early works perhaps influenced by Thomas de Keyser. 


PortTRAIT OF A MAN 
Signed 1632, K.K.78, B.73. 


Portrair OF DooMER (THE GILDER) 
Signed 1640, K.K.254, B. 275. 


A famous picture, not wholly in the Rembrandt manner, but force- 
ful and quite worthy of the master. Another version in the Duke of 
Devonshire’s collection there assigned to Bol. 


Portrait oF A MANn 
Signed 1632, K.K.82, B.81. 
An excellent early Rembrandt. 


St. JoHn Baptist 
Signed 1632, K.K.113, B.134. 
With a golden-brown tone. 


PortTrRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed 1658, K.K.400, B.428. 
One of the finest and strongest pictures in the Rembrandt euvre. 


38 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PARIS: 
JACQUEMART- 
ANDRE 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


After its kind Rembrandt never did anything better. In agreement 
with the Carstanjen Rembrandt, the Jan Six portrait, and the Berlin 
Hendrickje Stoffels. 


SUPPER AT EMMAUS 
Signed 1648, K.K.294, B.326.* 


“Of much emotional feeling and great pathos. It is a poor, mean-looking 
Amsterdam Jew who figures as the Christ. The face is transfigured by suffer- 
ing, has sad eyes and blackened lips, and speaks the Christ of the tomb. The 
phosphorescent halo of death is about the head, and the suggestion of the tomb 
is given in the architecture at the back. ... The figures are well set in their 
aerial envelope. What an envelope it is with the deep, mysterious recess at 
the back! What luminous shadows are here! And how the table, chair, and 
dishes are drawn!”’—New Guides to Old Masters, Paris, p. 104. 


I add to that note of ten years ago merely that the picture is now 
under glass, which enriches its color. Easily done (but not heavily 
loaded), in a handling somewhat unusual with Rembrandt. 


A Fiayrep Ox 
Signed 1655, K.K.449, B.421.* 

A beautiful piece of painting, somewhat in the Rembrandt manner, 
but an unusual subject for him. It bears no likeness to the other 
dressed-beef pictures erroneously assigned to him. Even this one is 
doubtful. Assignment tentative. 


PortRAIt oF YounNG MAN 
Signed 1657, K.K.442, B.471. 


PortTRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 
Signed 1658, K.K.416, B.457. 


Both of these Louvre portraits are very close to Rembrandt, if not 
entirely by his own hand. They are in the style of the Tholinx por- 
trait (mentioned below), are dragged with a half-loaded brush, freely 
done but not aggressive in flow of pigment, with luminous shadows. A 
little twist to the mustache, and irregular eyebrows. The color scheme 
is gray and golden brown. 


PorRTRAIT OF SASKIA 
Signed 1632, K.K.125, B.149. 

The face is pallid and has not the healthful look of the Cassel Saskia, 
though this may be the result of much cleaning of the surface. It is 
softer in drawing than the Cassel picture, and the hair has lost its 
texture. It is just possible that Lievens did some work on this por- 
trait. Assignment tentative. 


PortRAIT OF THOLINX 
Signed 1656, K.K.438, B.449. 

This portrait antedates the so-called Decker (1666) at Petrograd, is 
firmer in the drawing, more positive in the handling. The surface is 
loaded and dragged a little—not excessively—the shadow is very lumi- 
nous, the white of the collar high, the hat black, the mouth ajar, the 
right eye a little larger than the left. A very fine portrait. 


3. REMBRANDT: PORTRAIT OF COPPENOL 4. REMBRANDT: PORTRAIT OF SASKIA 


Cassel Gallery Cassel Gallery 


5. REMBRANDT: PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG MAN 6. REMBRANDT: SASKIA WITH THE RED FLOWER 
Louvre, Paris Dresden Gallery 


PuiateE II 


8. REMBRANDT: THE FIVE SYNDICS 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


7. REMBRANDT: A JEWISH RABBI 


National Gallery, London 


9. REMBRANDT: THE JEWISH BRIDE 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


10, REMBRANDT: PORTRAIT OF DECKER 


Hermitage, Petrograd 


Puate III 


—_ ie. 


wire as 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


VIENNA: 
IMPERIAL 
GALLERY 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY THE MASTER 39 


JOSEPH AND PoTiIPHAR’s WIFE 
Signed 1655, K.K.376, B.401. 

This is another version of the Kaiser-Friedrich, Berlin, picture of 
the same subject. It is not certainly by Rembrandt. Assignment 
tentative. 


PortTRAIt OF MAN 
Signed 1666, K.K.508, B.498.* 

Probably the portrait of the poet, Jeremias Decker. In the late 
manner of Rembrandt. It would fit in the picture of the Five Syndics 
at Amsterdam, though handled a little freer. 


PortTRAIT OF A MAN 
Not signed, K.K.84, B.93.* 


PorRTRAIT OF A WOMAN 
Not signed, K.K.84, B.94.* 


Both of these portraits are of Rembrandt origin. To-day they are 
so badly repainted that one can see Rembrandt but dimly. The por- 
trait of the man is repainted more than that of the woman. 


REMBRANDT’S SISTER 
Signed 1632, K.K.56, B.57. 
Described herein, Chapter IV. A beautiful early Rembrandt. 


REMBRANDT SHOP PICTURES 


The pictures listed here are what might be called “near Rembrandts”’ 
—work done in the shop, under the direction of the master and probably 
in part by his own hand as regards certain features of the surface finish. 
Some of them are quite worthy of Rembrandt’s own work, but are not listed 
as Rembrandts because they are not wholly in his manner. The designa- 
tion of “shop picture” is not intended as a slur but as a distinction and 


a difference. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
PRIVATE 
POSSESSION 

BOSTON: 
MUSEUM 


NARCISSUS 
(Cat. No. 2024), not signed.* 

The hand that did the Brunswick Family Group is apparent in 
this picture, especially in the flowers; but there is also a large suggestion 
of Eeckhout in the landscape, the peacock, the figure, and the general 
composition. 


HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Signed Rembant without an “r,” K.K.410, B.436. 


Portraits OF Dr. TuLP AND WIFE 
The man signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.201. Illustrated in catalogue. 

The woman has soft modelling and drawing and wet-paint plough- 
ing in the hair. The man is very much of the same quality and kind. 
Lievens (or Flinck) probably had a hand in the woman’s portrait, or, 
at least, there is that suggestion on the surface. 


40 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


CAMBRIDGE: 
FITZWILLIAM 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


FLORENCE: 
PITTI GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PoRTRAIT OF COOPAL 
Signed 1641, K.K.260, B.283. 

With glove in right hand, left hand on ledge, lace collar ploughed 
in the pattern, brown stain on the collar for shadow. A perfunctory 
portrait, signed conspicuously, perhaps because of its weakness. A 
shop piece in which Rembrandt had little interest and did little work. 


MAN WITH SworD 
Signed 1650, K.K.319, B.348. 

The plume in front has about disappeared in bitumen bubblings. 
Ostrich feather at left in red, also red cloak. Surface not loaded or 
kneaded. A work that comes very near to Rembrandt. 


REMBRANDT IN STEEL HELMET 
Signed 1634, K.K.148, B.169.* 


Very close to Rembrandt, if not entirely by his own hand. It is 
probably some shop work that he repainted and made almost his own. 


PortTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Not signed, K.K.148, B.1'70.* 


PorTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed K.K.146, B.165.* 
A portrait that Rembrandt practically made his own by finishing it. 


PortTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed 1634, K.K.146, B.166.* 


The lines in the beard and the dabs on the nose and nostrils are 
not effective. Perhaps touched up by Rembrandt. 


PortTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed K.K.149, B.171.* 

Some years ago I attributed this picture to Lievens because of the 
scratched hair, but perhaps it would better be called a Rembrandt shop 
piece in which Lievens had a hand. It lies between them. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
(Cat. No. 571.) 


PoRTRAIT OF WOMAN 
(Cat. No. 574.) 

These early portraits are catalogued in the gallery as shop pictures. 
Abbreviated copies of them are in the Metropolitan Museum, New 


York, catalogued as Rembrandt School work. The copies are repro- 
duced in K.K.90 and 91, B.90 and 91. 


Tue Passion SERIES 
Siz pictures, variously signed from 1636 to 1646, K.K.163-166, B.124-131, Hanf.* 


Work done almost wholly by pupils, as, for examples, the Descent | 


and the Ascension are traceable to Eeckhout, the Entombment to 
Van der Pluym. They will appear in the list of pictures by those paint- 
ers. There is little about the series that speaks for Rembrandt, and 
yet it probably originated in his shop and was, in measure, under his 
supervision. 


~ 


ao 


11. REMBRANDT SHOP: PORTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 12. REMBRANDT SHOP: PORTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 


Cassel Gallery Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna 


1g. REMBRANDT SHOP: PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG WOMAN 
Old Pinacothek, Munich 14. REMBRANDT SHOP: DESCENT FROM CROSS 
Old Pinacothek, Munich 


Pate IV 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


NEW YORK: 
FLEITMAN 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PARIS: 
DURAND-RUEL 
GALLERIES 

PARIS: 

PEREIRE 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY THE MASTER Al 


SACRIFICE OF Isaac 
Signed 1636, K.K.515, B.208.* 

On the back of this picture is an inscription saying that Rembrandt 
“retouched it.” If it were not for this, the picture would certainly be 
assigned to Bol. In its present position (1922) in the gallery it hangs 
between the Bol portraits of Flinck and his Wife, and is in perfect 
agreement with them as regards drawing, color, and handling. The 
left hand in the man’s portrait and the left hand of Abraham should 
be compared. Bol’s landscape is at the back. The face of the angel 
probably repainted. Probably done when Bol was working in the 
Rembrandt shop. 


PorTRAIT OF MAN 
Not signed, K.K.264, B.277. 


The brushwork and the drawing (notice the hand) are not Rem- 
brandt’s. It is pupil’s work, perhaps supervised by Rembrandt. 


Portrait or Titus 
Not signed, K.K.482, B.535. 


Portrait oF Wire oF Titus 
Not signed, K.K.483, B.536. 

These Metropolitan Museum portraits of Titus and Wife have not 
the precision or certainty of Rembrandt in either drawing or handling, 
and perhaps for that reason are given a date about 1667, when Rem- 
brandt was supposed to be uncertain of hand, but when in reality he 
was at his best technically. There is no reason to suppose them por- 
traits of Titus and his Wife. They are good shop portraits. 


Portrait or Younac Man 
K.K.67, B.559. 


Assignment tentative. 


PorTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed 1633, K.K.144, B.163.* 


PorTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed 1637, K.K.150, B.176.* 


PorTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed 1644, K.K.143, B.164.* 

These three portraits in the Louvre are unmistakably of Rem- 
brandt’s finishing. It is probable that they are works of pupils to 
which he gave final touches and repaintings. The similar tone and 
brush handling in all three, the pose and drawing, the squint of the 
eyes, the wrinkle between the brows, the tousled red hair, the twist of 
the neck, the general look in all of them point to supervision by some 
one who finally whipped them into uniformity. 


REMBRANDT’S SISTER 
Not signed, K.K.60, B.62. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
Signed 1632, K.K.86, B.88. 


42 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


PETWORTH: 
LECONFIELD 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Portrait oF WoMAN 
Signed 1633, K.K.87, B.89. 


Probably done in the Rembrandt shop, following the portraits of 
Willem van der Vliet. 


PortTRAIT OF COPPENOL 
Signed 1631, K.K.65, B.50, Hanf.* 


SACRIFICE OF Isaac 
Signed 1635, K.K.170, B.207, Hanf.* 

The angel in this picture is Bol’s—the same angel as in the Dresden 
Bol, Jacob’s Dream; the head of Abraham is that of No. 231 at Cassel, 
and suggests Lievens. It is probably a shop piece upon which several 
hands worked. Afterward repeated in other versions. See the note 
ante on the Munich Sacrifice of Isaac. 


PortTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed 1632, K.K.59, B.61. 


PortRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed K.K.150, B.174. 

With plumed hat and velvet coat. The high light on the shoulder 
and elsewhere a little out of value. An excellent portrait that might 
be given directly to Rembrandt, with but little strain. 


CHAPTER VII 
PICTURES BY PUPILS 


LMOST all the pupils and followers of Rembrandt known at the 
present time are named herein, that the reader may gather a general 
idea of the scope of the school. Some of the names are practically new in 
art history and have little biographical data and no pictures attached to 
them. Others are more complete in record, and a few have many pictures 
listed under them, with more or less accuracy. It will be borne in mind 
that the works of the pupils are confused with one another, as well as 
with the works of Rembrandt, and frequently they are given here with a 
query. 

With only a few exceptions the signatures upon pupils’ works may be 
accepted as evidence of genuineness because no commercial motive attaches 
to them. It would be useless to forge the name of Wulfhagen, or Van der 
Pluym, or Renesse, because, as already suggested, such names never have 
had a money value. The names of Dou, Bol, Flinck would be of more 
value to a picture, but usually not enough to induce forgery. There have 
been some false signatures of Dou as of Bol, but they are so few as to be 
almost negligible. 

It has not been my object to put down every picture of a pupil that 
may be reported from hither and yon, but merely to recite the leading 
works in sufficient number to give a comprehensive idea of the personality 
of the painter. There will be plenty of time to add to the lists hereafter 
and nothing will be gained by hurriedly attributing works that may have 
to be eliminated later on. 


BACKER, JACOB ADRIAENZ 
1608-1651 


Backer was one of the best of the Rembrandt pupils. He was with 
Rembrandt about 1633 or 1634 and learned the early gray manner of the 
master. From his remaining pictures we gain the impression that he 
was chiefly engaged with portraits. These are of excellent quality. 
Houbraken tells the story of his finishing a woman’s portrait in a day and 
the woman taking it home under her arm, but evidence of haste is not 


apparent in what portraits of his remain to us. They are smoothly 
43 


44 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


brushed, carefully finished—the women usually given with red cheeks, 
white ruffs, and black dresses. There is truth, sobriety, and seriousness 
about these portraits, but they have not the profundity of vision, nor 
breadth of sympathy, nor skill of rendering of the Rembrandts. Super- 
ficially they resemble Rembrandt’s manner in his gray-golden period and 
many of them have been appropriated to the Rembrandt name. Vondel 
praised his work in verse, the Carmelite Church at Antwerp ordered a 
Last Judgment from him, and in Amsterdam, where he lived most of his 
life, he did many portraits, including several regent pieces. He is said to 
have done much black-and-white work that has now disappeared. 

A number of semi-classic nude pictures of sleeping nymphs are put 
down to him, with several correspondingly smooth brown portraits; but it 
is doubtful if he did these pictures. They do not blend or run on from 
the earliest portraits, and seem by an entirely different hand—possibly the 
hand of some other member of the Backer family. At any rate, we are 
concerned herein only with the Rembrandtesque work of Backer, the 
portrait painter. This is definite and easily followed. 


PICTURES BY BACKER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: GOvERNORS OF NIEUWEZIJDS HUISZITTENHUIS 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed about 1650. 
AMSTERDAM: REGENT PIECE 
WAISENHAUS 
AMSTERDAM: CoMPANY OF ARCHERS 
TOWN HALL Signed 1642. 
AMSTERDAM: Portrait oF UITENBOGAERT 
MEETING- 1638. Photographic reproduction not easily obtainable. 
HOUSE OF 


An important portrait with which should be compared the Swalmius 


BERING portrait at Antwerp and the Alenson portrait at Paris, both referred to 
STRANTS hereafter. 
ANTWERP: PoRTRAIT OF OLD WoMAN 
MUSEUM Reproduced in Pol de Mont, Musée Royal des Beaux-Arts d’ Anvers. 
A characteristic example of his more conventional work. 
BERLIN: PortTRAIT OF FRANCOIS DE VROUDE 
KAISER- Signed 1643. 
sii NS Signed with initials and an undoubted Backer. It is like the Backer 
MUSEUM Portrait of an Old Lady in this gallery, especially in the hands and 


face drawing. The head is pushed down in the ruff. Surely drawn. 
Skull-cap on head, a table with a pot hat at right. Composition, draw- 
ing, and handling follow closely that of the Uitenbogaert in the Re- 
monstrants’ Meeting House in Amsterdam. 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


DARMSTADT: 
MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 45 


Portrait oF Otp Lapy* 


Hands a little lumpy and soft, face a bit flabby, wrinkles empha- 
sized by ridges or little waves of paint, outline of face wavering, eyes 
red, cheeks and lips red, flesh color looks a little grimed under the 
surface. It corresponds in handling, drawing, composition, and gen- 
eral conception to the Havemeyer and Elizabeth Bas portraits, ascribed 
to Rembrandt and listed hereafter. A fine portrait. 


PORTRAIT OF THE PAINTER 
Signed. 
It is not characteristic or Rembrandtesque. 


SLEEPING NYMPHS AND SHEPHERD 


This and another sleeping nymph picture, with a portrait of a 
woman, are given to Backer in this gallery, but they are not in the 
Rembrandt manner and need not concern our present inquiry, even if 
genuine. 


PorRTRAIT OF A WOMAN 


An excellent and individual performance. In black fur-trimmed 
dress, millstone ruff, white cuffs. The outline of face rambling, the 
drawing, handling, pose, and feeling like that of the Elizabeth Bas at 
Amsterdam. 


Man In Fors 
Signed. 


PortTRAIT OF YOUNG WoMAN 
Signed. 


Youna Man 1n Rep Crioaxk 
Not signed.* 

None of these Dresden Backers are in a Rembrandt vein. There is 
doubt about their assignment to J. A. Backer. They are like the por- 
trait at the Brunswick Museum. 


Portrait oF MAN 
It has a Bol look about it. 


PortrRAIT oF A Boy 
The signature of Rembrandt at the right in red. Below it, in shadow, the signature 
of Backer. 


A gray and dull-yellow scheme upon a lead-colored ground. Very 
easily done, with yellow-gray shadows dragged upon face and hands 
slightly. 


Portrait oF OLD WoMAN 
Reproduced in Catalogue.* 
The Catalogue says: ‘‘ The forged signature of Rembrandt, 1632. A 


signature has possibly been obliterated to the right.” An excellent and 
typical Backer in the style of the Elizabeth Bas at Amsterdam. 


46 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


ANTWERP: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
LANE 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Portrait oF MANn 
Signed “B.” 


PortTRAIT OF WOMAN 
Signed “‘ Backer.” 

Both of these Munich portraits are in brownish red tone and feebly 
done. It is a question if another Backer did not do them. They are 
only vaguely suggestive of the Rembrandt School and not like J. A. 
Backer’s early portraits. They belong with the Brunswick-Dresden 
portraits put down to Backer. 


Two PortTRAITS 
They give but a slight hint of Backer and are questionable. 


Man In Buack 
Signed. 
Reddish flesh color all through, simply painted and well drawn. It 


agrees well with the Alenson portrait at Brussels, given to Rembrandt, 
but by Backer. 


PICTURES BY BACKER 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


PortTRAIT OF EvizABETH Bas 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.262, B.279.* 


Generally considered a Rembrandt, but thought by Doctor Bredius 
to be a Bol. I can-find no trace of either painter in the picture. It 
has the pose, the costume, the hands, the face outline, the drawing, 
and the handling of Backer. The brushwork is Backer’s, marked in 
the hands and face by superimposed flesh color as high lights, super- 
imposed and dragged over a darker ground, with something of the 
ground showing through. This is exactly the handling of the Antwerp 
(and Berlin) Portrait of a Woman, rightly assigned to Backer. The 
canvas has been rubbed and cleaned too much and the surface is a 
little flattened. It is a masterful work, but that is not a good reason 
for giving it to Rembrandt. Backer did a number of superb portraits 
—this being one of the best. 


PORTRAIT OF SWALMIUS 

Signed Rembrandt 1637, K.K.214, B.226.* 
This portrait is in the manner of the Alenson portrait (K.K.198) 

and must stand or fall with it. The analogies and likenesses are too 

obvious to be pointed out. Both portraits may be closely compared 

with the Backer portrait of Uitenbogaert in the Meeting House of the 

Remonstrants, Amsterdam. 


Portrait oF Younce GIRL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.99, B.92. 

It agrees in spirit and in workmanship with the women portraits 
by Backer in the Antwerp Museum and the Wallace Collection. It is 
a young instead of an old woman, and has a little more sprightliness 


15. BACKER: PORTRAIT OF OLD WOMAN 16. BACKER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): YOUNG 
Wallace Collection, London DUTCHWOMAN 
Metropolitan Museum, New York 


17. BACKER: PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN 18. BACKER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): WIFE OF 
Darmstadt Museum ALENSON 
Schneider Collection, Paris 


PLATE V 


TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF 


OLD LADY 
Havemeyer Collection, New York 


BACKER (GIVEN 


20. 


19, BACKER: PORTRAIT OF OLD LADY 


Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


. 

r 
. 
. 

* 
. 

e 

; 

, 
. 
7 
: 
i 


22, BACKER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): ELIZABETH BAS 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


BACKER: PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN 


a1. 
Antwerp Museum 


Puate VI 


LONDON: 
ROSEBERY 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
HOLFORD 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


NEW YORK: 
MOORE 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
HAVEMEYER 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 47 


about it. Compare so small a detail as the doing of the dress and the 
pattern of the velvet here, with those in the Antwerp portrait. Backer 
repeated himself very often and did many things in a routine way. 
Nothing could be further from Rembrandt than such a portrait as this. 
Compare it with the genuine Rembrandt portrait of his sister in the 
Liechtenstein Gallery (K.K.56). It is probably by Backer. 


PORTRAIT OF UITENBOGAERT 
Signed Rembrandt, 1633, K.K.93, B.562. 


It is a second portrait of Uitenbogaert by Backer, the other being 
in the Meeting House of the Society of Remonstrants (Arminians) at 
Amsterdam. The placing and composition are different, but not the 
drawing and handling. The hand alone should say it was Backer. 
But the drawing of the face, ruff, and cloak all point to him. He is here 
perhaps more perfunctory than in the Amsterdam portrait—though 
this latter is given to Rembrandt. 


PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN 
Not signed, K.K.340, B.291. 
In a similar vein to the Elizabeth Bas at Amsterdam in pose, dress, 


ruffs, hands, handkerchief, but less elaborately done. It also resem- 
bles the Darmstadt Backer. 


PorTRAIT OF A YOUNG DutTcHWOMAN 
Signed Rembrandt, 1633, K.K.98, B.561. 


It should be compared closely with the Backer in the Antwerp 
Museum, reproduced in Pol de Mont Musée Royal des Beaux-Arts 
d’Anvers (also in the gallery catalogue), and the Backer in the Wal- 
lace Collection, London (reproduced in catalogue). The mind and the 
method are identical in all three. Note carefully the turn of the head, 
the drawing of the cap, the eyes, the mouth. 


Portrait or Man 
Signed Rembrandt, 1633, K.K.Supp. 30. 

It follows the Uitenbogaert portrait given above. Compare the 
ruffs, the hats, the light and shade, the drawing, the spirit. It seems 
in the same vein throughout. Assignment tentative. 


PorTRAIT OF YOUNG WoMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.Supp. 31. 


Probably companion piece to above. Compare with the Portrait 
of a Woman in the Wallace Collection, also the Young Dutch Woman 
in the Metropolitan Museum, also the Backer Portrait of a Woman, at 
Antwerp—especially this latter portrait. Assignment tentative. 


Portrait oF OLtp Lapy 
Signed Rembrandt 1640, K.K.256, B.278. 


The sitter is identical with that of the old lady in the Berlin portrait 
by Backer. Costume and pose, too, are practically the same. The 
Berlin portrait shows the woman a few years younger. It is dated 
1640. The work in both pictures is practically the same, and both 
were possibly done by Backer. 


48 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PARIS: PorTRAIT OF ALENSON 
SCHNEIDER Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.198. 
COLLECTION 


Compare the placing and drawing of the hands in this picture with 
those in the Uitenbogaert portrait (K.K.93). The Alenson is much 
the better picture because probably the Uitenbogaert is a matter-of-fact 
replica. 


WIFE OF ALENSON 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.199, B.110. 

In the manner of the Darmstadt Backer. Notice the similarity of 
pose, of placing the hands, of doing the dress. In all these portraits 
the working of the same methodical mind is shown. There is a calm, 
conventional way of seeing and doing, but with good if not great results 
in portraiture. Companion piece to above. 


PARIS: Portrait oF OLD Woman 
ROTHSCHILD Signed R.H.L.1632, K.K.76, B.85. 
Ae EI A different type, but in other respects it conforms exactly to the 


portraits in the Wallace Collection, the Antwerp Museum, the Metro- 
politan Museum. 


PETROGRAD: MapaMeé Doomer PortRAIT 
HERMITAGE Signed Rembrandt, K.K.255, B.231. 


To be compared closely with the Antwerp portrait. Also with the 
Darmstadt and Wallace Collection portraits. It is the same mind and 
hand at work and both of them somewhat removed from Rembrandt. 
Probably not a companion piece to the Gilder (K.K.254). Another 
version belongs to the Duke of Devonshire and is given to Bol. 


STOCKHOLM: Portrait OF UITENBOGAERT 
MUSEUM Signed Rembrandt, K.K.534, B.95. ; 
Another and perhaps later version of the Rosebery portrait possi- 
bly by some pupil or assistant of Backer. 


It should be noticed that these Backer portraits, attributed to Rem- 
brandt, are all dated at the time (1632-1633), or a little later, when Backer 
is thought to have been in Rembrandt’s studio. It would be worth while 
for the student to get the photographs or reproductions of these supposed 
Rembrandts and place them side by side with the signed or otherwise 
authenticated Backers to see how completely they are in accord and reveal 
one distinct artistic personality. Also put the united group of Backers 
beside the group of Rembrandts already listed, or that of any one of the 
pupils listed hereafter, and note how radically different they are and what 
opposed artistic personalities they present. This is really the crux of the 
whole matter. The so-called Rembrandt @uvre is a mixture of master and 
pupils. The endeavor of these lists is to separate the mass into its com- 
ponent parts and re-establish some personalities that have been hidden 
under the name of Rembrandt for many years. Backer is one of them. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 49 


BEYEREN, LEENDERT CORNELIS VAN 
1620-1649 


A pupil of Rembrandt about 1638. He is said to have copied many 
_of Rembrandt’s pictures. Nothing of his work remains under his name at 
the present day—nothing at least in public galleries. 


BOL, FERDINAND 
1616-1680 


Perhaps, all told, Bol was the best known of the Rembrandt pupils, 
though not the most forceful. He achieved popular success (at one time 
even going beyond Rembrandt himself) by grace of surface, elegance of 
pose and models, and a charm of decorative light and color. He was with 
Rembrandt as a pupil possibly as early as 1631 and later became his friend 
and helper in the shop. He did many historical and biblical subjects, 
but they are less forceful than his portraits. They are light in color, a 
little frail in types, though usually well put together. His later work was 
rather weak and his portraits became increasingly prettified, as, indeed, 
they had been from the start. He was not a positive personality and this 
shows throughout the body of his work. Superficially it resembles Rem- 
brandt’s work and has been much confused with it. There is enough of it 
extant to give a correct idea of the painter and his quality. I give here 
only the chief examples in the public galleries and omit, for the most part, 
those held in private possession. Nothing is dated earlier than 1642, 
which suggests that perhaps his early work when with Rembrandt was all 
put under Rembrandt’s name. 


PICTURES BY BOL 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 
AMSTERDAM: ALLEGORY 
RYKS MUSEUM (No. 546), Signed 1663. 


NAAMAN AND ELISHA 
Signed 1661. 


PorRTRAITS OF MEULENAER AND WIFE 
Signed. 


Srx GoveRNoRS OF HUISZITTENHUIS 
Signed 1657.* 


Four Governors oF LEPER HospItTaL 
1668. 


50 


ANTWERP: 
MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 

CINCINNATI: 
TAFT 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


TuHrReE Lapy Governors oF LEPER HospITau 
Signed 1668, Hanf. 


ABRAHAM RECEIVING VisIT OF ANGELS 
Signed.* 


SALOME Dancinc BrEForE HERop 
Signed. 


Portrait oF M. A. pE Ruyter 
Signed 1667, Hanf. 


PoRTRAIT OF QUELLINUS 
Signed 1663, Hanf. 


PORTRAIT OF AN ADMIRAL 
Signed 1667. 


MorTHER AND Two CHILDREN 
(No. 547), signed. 


Two Portraits 
Signed 1661.* 


PoRTRAIT OF AN Otp Lapy 
Signed 1642. 


Not a typical Bol—in fact, if it were not signed its identity would 
be questioned. Used by Doctor Bredius to prove the Elizabeth Bas 
at Amsterdam is by the same hand. Not in good condition. 


Portrait or Youna Man 

This is the Bol model used by him many times as an angel type. 
A well-drawn and easily painted portrait which may be accepted as a 
type and a criterion. 


Man’s Portrait 
Probably done in 1668. 


An excellent straightforward Bol of good quality, well drawn and 
simply handled. 


Portraits or Man anp WoMAN | 
Signed 1660.* 
They are official formal stereotyped Bols. 


PoRTRAIT OF SASKIA 
Signed 1660. 


In dark-red dress, jewels in hair and at throat, hands clasped. It 
has Bol’s good drawing but also his weakness or sweetness of mood. 


PortTrRAIt oF MAN 


Formerly in the Habich Collection and published in the Habich 
Catalogue. 


PORTRAIT OF THE PAINTER 


COPENHAGEN: 


MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


EDINBURGH: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


FRANKFORT: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


HAMBURG: 


KUNSTHALLE 


LIVERPOOL: 
WALKER 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 51 


Tue THree Marys at THE Toms 
Signed 1644. 

An excellent and typical Bol. Very large canvas and well sus- 
tained, though a little weak in mental grip. The drawing, light and 
shade, color are all very good. The handling is smooth and fairly 
thin, but the placing of color is broad enough in the masses. The 
clouds are dark and somewhat smoky—precisely like those in the 
Rembrandt Tobias and Angel, in the Louvre. The light at back is 
quite piercing. It is a fine Bol, and very like in composition to the 
so-called Rembrandt of Tobias and the Angel in the Louvre, though 
probably done later. It is not Bol following Rembrandt, but Bol in 
both pictures. See him again in the Liverpool picture of the Angel 
and Hagar. 


Lapy witH Fan 
Signed 1656. 
With raspberry-red curtains at back. 


Rest 1n Fuicut into Eaeyrpt 
Signed 1644. Reproduced in Catalogue.* 


JACOB’s DREAM 
Signed. Reproduced in Catalogue.* 


JACOB BEFoRE PHARAOH 
Hanf.* 


PortrRAIT OF Man 
A scheme in brown and red. Compare the handling with the 
second ascribed Bol (a Koninck) in this gallery. 


Portrait oF Man 
Signed 1644.* 


PorRTRAIT OF MAN 
Signed 1659.* 


Portrait oF E. DE RuytTER 
Signed 1669, Hanf. 
An official portrait. 


PorRTRAIT OF MAN 


In Bol’s late manner, and with bright reds and gold, but rather 
weak in spirit. 


ANGEL APPEARING TO HAGAR 

Both the angel and Hagar are Bol models, with Bol wings, hands, 
and drapery. At back is the familiar Bol smoky cloud, through which 
comes light—the same effect that one sees in the Copenhagen Bol, the 
Three Marys, and also the Rembrandt, Tobias and Angel, in the Louvre, 
which is by Bol. The model here of Hagar is repeated in the Louvre 
picture. These three pictures confirm each other. 


PoRTRAIT OF AN ASTRONOMER 
Signed 1652. 


52 


LONDON: 
NORTHBROOK 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 

ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


SCHWERIN: 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Marriep Parr at TorLet 

The man in appearance agrees with the Bol portrait of himself in 
the Cook Collection, and the woman may be his wife. She stands at a 
table, looking at a pearl, and he is at the left with a stick in hand. 


PortTRAITtS OF FLINCK AND WIFE 
The wife signed 1642, Hanf.* 

Both portraits with red spots on cheeks and in faded garments. 
Excellent portraits once attributed to Rembrandt, but there is no 
doubt about Bol having painted them. 


Bou anp His WIFE 


YounGe Prince or HOLLAND 
Signed 1654. 


PHILOSOPHER IN MEDITATION* 
The model here is the so-called brother of Rembrandt. 
portraits in the Louvre by Bol of conventional character. 


Two other 


PORTRAIT OF PAINTER 
Hanf.* 


PortrRAIT OF Sittinc. MAN witH Book 
Hanf. 


PORTRAIT OF THE PrincEss OF NASSAU-SIEGEN 
Hanf. 


Portrait oF Man: 


With pearls in hat. Probably Bol by himself. 


PorRTRAIT OF A Boy 
Signed 1656. 


PortTRAIT OF A YOUNG WoMAN 
Signed 1652. 

Both of these portraits are smooth, brilliant in color, weak in senti- 
ment, and pretty in textures. They are the kind of portrait attributed 
to Bol, to Maes, and to Jurian Ovens. Perhaps Ovens is responsible 
for them and not Bol, but we know too little about Ovens thus to 
assign them. Bol was well enough known to have his name occa- 
sionally put on things he never saw, as were also Flinck and Maes. 


JOSEPH INTERPRETING THE DREAM 
(Catalogue No. 90.) 

An excellent Bol in a golden tone. Joseph standing with dull-red 
cap and boots, two other figures seated on floor of prison. Thinly 
handled, not loaded anywhere. Well drawn and lighted. Serious in 
mood and neither sweet nor pretty. 


Portrait oF OLD Man 
(Catalogue No. 91), signed 1647. 
A strong portrait and a little beyond the typical Bol. 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BOSTON: 
EVANS 
COLLECTION 


BRUNSWICK: 
GALLERY 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 53 


PICTURES BY BOL 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


JacoB WRESTLING WITH ANGEL 
Signed Rembrandt. Reproduced in Catalogue, K.K.394, B.410.* 

The picture has been cut down. The angel is Bol’s type, as shown 
in the Amsterdam picture of Abraham and Angels, and the Portrait 
of a Young Man at Berlin (Catalogue No. 809A). Itis a coarse-grained, 
hot, and perhaps unfinished picture, done probably while Bol was 
helping Rembrandt, after 1640. The assignment is tentative. 


YounGe SAMSON 
Reproduced in “Burlington Magazine,” vol. 26, p. 256, with portraits by Bol and a 

note wpon the picture, K.K.Supp. 38. 

It is probably a Bol portrait of himself in costume. Exhibited at 
the Boston Museum. To be compared with the Dresden Bol, Jacob 
Before Pharaoh, for types, likenesses, and analogies. Also with the 
Brunswick Portrait of Rembrandt. The heavy ball of the thumb will 
be found repeated many times with Bol. 


PortTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
K.K.34, B.162. Reproduced in “Burlington Magazine,”’ vol. 26, p. 256. 

This is a portrait of Bol by himself rather than a Rembrandt by 
Rembrandt. It is the same type and model as in the Boston Young 
Samson, with all of Bol’s manner of drawing the eyes, nose, mouth, 
hair. To be compared with the Bol at Cincinnati in the Taft Collec- 
tion. Now (1922) given to Bol in the Brunswick catalogue. 


Rare oF GANYMEDE 
Signed 1635, K.K.169, B.197. 


The gray sky, clouds, and distant light make for Bol. Also the 
eagle wings and the color of the cherries and tassel, which will be found 
repeated in the Bol of Rembrandt with Saskia on his knee. But the 
boy is hardly a Bol phantasy, though drawn in a Bol way. Compare 
it in this gallery with the Rembrandt and Saskia on his knee, the Bol 
Jacob Before Pharaoh, the Bol Rest in the Flight, the Bol Joseph’s 
Dream, all in the same room. The Ganymede seems to agree with 
them. But the attribution is open to question. 


REMBRANDT AND SASKIA 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.133, B.157, Hanf.* 


Probably done by Bol when working with Rembrandt in his shop 
before 1640. If the portrait is of Rembrandt, the lady is probably 
Saskia, his wife. He would scarcely wish to go down to posterity on 
canvas holding some other lady on hisknee. But the two may have been 
merely models. In either case, Bol could have painted them at just this 
time and in the Rembrandt shop. There is little doubt about his paint- 
ing this picture. If the difference between Rembrandt and Bol would be 
noted carefully, compare this picture with the Rembrandt Saskia with 
the Red Flower hanging in the same room (No. 1562). The model of 
Saskia is the same in both pictures, but note the difference in the draw- 


54 


DUBLIN: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 

ENGLAND: 
DERBY 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


ing of the oval of the face. The double picture is the earlier, and 
Rembrandt would have drawn it sharper and harder, but here it is 
looser and more rambling than the single Saskia picture. Compare 
also the hands here with all the Bol hands in the gallery. Finally, com- 
pare the Saskia with the Madame Flinck by Bol at Munich, noting care- 
fully the drawing of the noses, mouths, eyes, collars, chains. 


**It is somewhat thin in light and also in the shadows. In drawing it is 
by no means positive, and in color it has the pallor of a Ferdinand Bol. The 
background of peacock’s feathers is poorly done, the wall does not recede, and 
the textures are not very convincing. The picture is hurt by scrubbing and 
cleaning, which may account for its weak appearance. It is a gray-period 
picture—Bol’s gray period, perhaps, rather than Rembrandt’s.”—New Guides 
to Old Masters, Dresden. 


Portrait or YounG MAN 
K.K.195, B.102. 


MeEneE TEKEL 
K.K.155, B.209. 

With Bol’s types, especially in the woman with the clasped hands 
at back. All the hands are Bol’s, especially the hand on the table. 
Head-dress, costumes, lighting are again Bol’s. Compare this Bel- 
shazzar with the Boston Young Samson for action and pseudo-dramatic 
quality. 


Topias AND ANGEL 
Signed Rembrandt 1637, K.K.179, B.219.* 

In my notes of 1913 on this picture I spoke of its Bol look, but still 
decided that it was Rembrandt in his gray-golden period. It should 
be compared with the Copenhagen Bol, the Three Marys at the Tomb, 
one of Bol’s most important pictures. It will be noted that the com- 
position has been repeated not only in the arrangement of groups and 
lighting but in the kneeling figures, the clasped hands, the types. The 
photographs of the two pictures need merely to be put side by side to 
establish the identity of authorship in the pictures. It is not Bol fol- 
lowing or imitating Rembrandt. Both pictures are typical Bols in 
light, color, atmosphere, composition, types. The angel’s wings are 
repeated in the signed Bol at Dresden of Jacob’s Dream, the handling 
and even the lax drawing are the same, and the smoky clouds and sky 
are Bol without a doubt. Compare again with the Bol Angel and 
Hagar, in the Liverpool Gallery. 


St. MatrrHew EvANGELIStT 
Signed Rembrandt 1661, K.K.456, B.521.* 


It belongs with the Berlin picture of Jacob and the Angel, both 
pictures from the Rembrandt shop, perhaps, but largely dominated 
and painted by Bol. This St. Matthew, for example, has Bol’s angel 
at the back—the same angel used in the Abraham and the Angels, at 
Amsterdam. Probably the Moses Breaking the Tables of Stone at 
Berlin (Catalogue No. 811, K.K.394) and the St. Bartholomew at Dorn- 
ton Castle (K.K.456) are other shop pieces in the same series, but the 
hand of Bol is not so apparent in them. All three assignments are 
tentative. There is not sufficient evidence to be positive about them. 


23 BOL: THREE MARYS AT TOMB 


Copenhagen Museum 


24, BOL (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): TOBIAS AND ANGEL 


Louvre, Paris 


25. BOL: PORTRAIT OF MAN 26. BOL (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): YOUNG SAMSON 
Cassel Gallery Evans Collection, Boston 


Puate VII 


27. BOL: PORTRAIT OF A MAN 28. BOL (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF MAN 


Brunswick Museum Hermitage, Petrograd 


29. BOL: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 30. BOL (FORMERLY TO REMBRANDT): YOUNG MAN 


Hermitage, Petrograd Brunswick Museum 


Puate VIII 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 55 


PETROGRAD: ABRAHAM AND THE THREE ANGELS 
HERMITAGE Not signed, K.K.181, B.223, Hanf.* 

It has the Bol types, especially in the angels at the right and back, 
also the Bol hands and wings. It shows also Bol’s handling through- 
out, and was probably painted before leaving the Rembrandt shop— 
before he degenerated into his weak and pretty method. 


“The handling here is spirited and easy but not too sure. The angel with 
the back toward us is flat and wants in modelling, the faces are smooth and a 
bit pretty, the Abraham is a little weak. They are very like Bol in these 
respects and very unlike Rembrandt.’”—New Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, 
p. 719. 


Portrait or Youna Man 
(Catalogue No. 828.) Signed Rembrandt, 1634, K.K.195, B.103, Hanf.* 

A typical portrait by Bol. Even Doctor Bredius, if I read him 
aright, thinks this and the other Hermitage portrait (No. 842) are by 
Bol. There is little room for doubt about it. 


Portrait oF Youna Man 
(Catalogue No. 842.) Signed Rembrandt, 1634, K.K.200, Hanf. 


VIENNA: PortRAIT OF ANTONY CooPAL 
ROTHSCHILD Signed Rembrandt, 1635, K.K.211, B.185. 
COLLECTION Compare with the Boston Young Samson. In the Bol manner. 


Assignment tentative. 


Several other Rembrandts in private possession might be listed as Bols, 
but nothing of importance would be gained thereby. The Bols, and the 
Bols attributed to Rembrandt, if put together in reproductions, will be 
found to reveal a definite if not very powerful personality in the same way 
that the Backers attributed to Rembrandt reveal Backer. 


BORSSOM, ANTHONY VAN 
1630 ?-1677 


A pupil of Rembrandt who painted landscapes, which are somewhat 
like Rembrandt’s in their lighting. At times he is supposed to resemble 
Aelbert Cuyp and, again, Wynants. His works are scarce and it is diffi- 
cult to get from them a well-defined idea of the painter. There are draw- 
ings by him in the British Museum. 


PICTURES BY BORSSOM 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: LANDSCAPE 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed. 


INSECTS AND FLOWERS 
Signed. 


56 


BUDAPEST: 
MUSEUM 


CAMBRIDGE: 
FITZWILLIAM 
MUSEUM 

COPENHAGEN: 
GLYPTOTEK 


DULWICH: 
GALLERY 


HAMBURG: 
KUNSTHALLE 


PARIS: 
ROTHSCHILD 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


LANDSCAPE 
Signed, reproduced in Catalogue. 


LANDSCAPE WITH CATTLE 
(No. 344). 


LANDSCAPE 

With slashes of light across foreground that suggest the so-called 
Rembrandt landscapes. Gray sky, village in distance, with spires and 
towers. 


LANDSCAPE 


Large in size and dark in tone. Attribution may be questioned. 


LANDSCAPE 
(No. 138.) 
In the style of Wynants, with sand dunes, blue sky, white clouds. 


LANDSCAPE 
(No. 286.) 

With cottage, trees, blue sky, and clouds. In dark key, with sharp 
contrasts of light, but hardly Rembrandtesque. 


LANDSCAPE WITH Cows 


BROUWER, CORNELIS 
?-1681 


Houbraken says Brouwer was a pupil of Rembrandt and a friend of 
Adraien Van der Werff. The only picture that is even attributed to him 


is in the Cassel Gallery, The Unfaithful Servant (No. 256). 


It is signed 


‘Brouwer f. 1634”? and was formerly listed as by Abraham Brouwer. It 
is a little in the style of Gerard Dou. 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY BROUWER 


SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


THe UNFAITHFUL SERVANT 
Signed 1634, Hanf.* 

“Good as an effect of light, shadow, and air in an interior. The inset of the 
figures—their placing in atmosphere—is well given and the picture is not bad 
in color. As to whether Cornelis Brouwer painted it or not, who knows? It 
is said to be his only known work.”’—New Guides to Old Masters, Cassel, p. 138. 


CASTIGLIONE, GIOVANNI BENEDETTO 
1616-1670 


A well-known Italian painter and etcher who was evidently acquainted 
with Rembrandt’s work and was influenced by him in etching rather than 


in painting. 


He is listed by Doctor Hofstede de Groot as a Rembrandt 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 57 


follower, but it is doubtful if any of his pictures are now passing as Rem- 


brandts. 


It is not necessary to list them, for they are hardly pertinent to 


the present inquiry. 


DELFF, OR DELFF OF DELFIUS, JACOB WILLEMZ 


1619-1661 


Sometimes called “the younger”’ to distinguish him from his father. 
An excellent portrait painter, working somewhat in the Rembrandt style, 


with very few pictures left to his account. 


Supposed to have been influ- 


enced also by Van Dyck. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY DELFF 


SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Portrait oF YounG MAn 
(No. 774.) Signed 1643. 


Lace collar, flat yellow hair, yellow tone. 
Rotterdam portrait. 


In same vein as the 


SHOOTING COMPANY 


DELFT: 

TOWN HALL 1648. 

ot ee PortTRAIT OF WoMAN 
FORMERLY : 
Signed. 
WITH FAIRFAX 
MURRAY . 
ROTTERDAM: Portrait oF Man 

BOYMANS Signed, 1642. 

MUSEUM Yellow hair and mustache, general tone dull grayish-yellow, with a 
hint of Lievens in it, and something of Van Dyck, but with the Rem- 
brandt pose, modelling, and light and shade. 

VIENNA: Boy’s Portrait 

LIECHTEN- Signed. 

iN Reddish in flesh, well modelled, and very good in every way, but 

GALLERY 


with slight indication of Rembrandt influence. 


DOOMER, LAMBERT 
1623 ?-1700 


A painter of the Rembrandt school, better known by his drawings than 


his paintings. 


The drawings are in the Louvre, at Paris, and the Albertina, 


at Vienna; also the Utrecht Museum. Many reproductions of them in the 
Sir Robert Witt Collection of photographs after paintings, Portman Square, 
London. 


58 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 
PICTURES BY DOOMER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 
AMSTERDAM: Inn NEAR NANTES 


RYKS MUSEUM 


Signed. 
Sketch in Print Room of Ryks Museum. 


ALKMAAR: REGENT PIEcE 
WAISENHAUS Signed 1681. 

COPENHAGEN: LANDSCAPE WITH THISTLE 
MUSEUM Signed 1676. 


A large thistle fills the first plane and makes the pattern. A goat 
is seen at right and a castle at left. An odd picture, with dull light, 
dark colors, but easily painted. 


THE HAGUE: An INN 

MUSEUM Signed. 

PICTURES BY DOOMER 
ATTRIBUTED TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 

AMSTERDAM: A Rep CaBBAGE 

RYKS MUSEUM (No. 96a.) Under ‘‘ Anonymous.” 

Probably by Doomer. The assignment is tentative. 

AMSTERDAM: LANDSCAPE WITH THISTLE 

SIX Attributed to Ruys. 

COLLECTION 


Probably by the painter of the Copenhagen picture. Assignment 


tentative. 


DOU, GERARD 
1613-1675 


Dou was one of the earliest of the Rembrandt pupils, entering the 


studio about 1628 and remaining until 1631. 
of Rembrandt and went beyond it by making it tighter and smaller. 


He learned the early manner 
He 


finally passed the manner on to his pupils, such as Schalken, Mieris, Slinge- 
land, Brekelenkam, and others. It was always rather petty art and Dou 
himself never had more than a surface view of life. His models (in interiors 
or at windows), with curtains, chandeliers, pots, pans, and other still-life— 
all of it still whether alive or dead—made up his art. He need not be 
very seriously considered here, for, with a few exceptions, his work was 
always too smooth and minute to be attributed to Rembrandt. We shall 
list only a few of his pictures in the principal European galleries. A gath- 
ering of Dou’s work has been made in a separate volume, in the Klassiker 
der Kunst series, for those who wish to study him. There are some 200 
of his works in existence. Being over-nice and microscopic, they have 
always been in demand. His pupils paid him the compliment of imitation, 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 


59 


and the unscrupulous occasionally forged his name on pictures that he 
never saw. His success was great commercially, but artistically he was 


always small. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 

CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


GOTHA: 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PICTURES BY DOU 


SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


EVENING CLASS 
Signed.* 


Tue Hermit 
Signed, K.K., Dou.* 


There are seven other examples by Dou in the Ryks Museum. 


ReEMBRANDT’S MorTruErR 
Signed, K.K., Dou.* 


Two other examples in the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum. 


REMBRANDT’S FATHER AND MoTHER 
K.K., Dou, Hanf.* 


Woman READING 
K.K., Dou.* 


PAINTER IN His Strupio 
K.K., Dou, Hanf.* 
Sixteen other Dous in the Dresden Gallery. 


A SPINNER 
Signed. 


The model is the so-called Rembrandt’s mother. 


Dou. 


PortRAIT OF A Boy 
Loaned by Smidt van Gelder and exhibited in 1922. 
A portrait showing Dou at his best. 


Lapy At ToImLetT 
K.K., Dou.* 


A SPINNER AT TABLE 
K.K., Dou, Hanf. 
Five other examples in the Munich Gallery. 


Tue DropsicaL WoMAN 
K.K., Dou.* 
Eight other examples in the Louvre. 


A very good early 


Many other pictures by Dou in the galleries at London, Vienna, Stock- 
holm, Schwerin, Petrograd, Copenhagen, The Hague, Brussels, Bruns- 
wick. A critical analysis of these pictures would find many of them 
done in the shop by pupils, and some of them done out of the shop by 


imitators. 


CHAPTER VIII 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 
(CONTINUED) 


DROST, WILLEM 
?-1678 


OUBRAKEN speaks of Drost as a Rembrandt pupil, the painter of 

a John the Baptist, and of his having lived long in Rome with Carel 

Lott and Jan Van der Meer of Utrecht. The few works given to him cer- 

tainly show classical influence, especially the signed example at Cassel, 

Christ Appearing to the Magdalene. There is little known concerning his 

life, but his pictures indicate that he had a sad strain about him. The 

emotional in him cast almost everything he did in a melancholy, half- 
morbid vein. 

His light-and-shade is his marked technical feature. Here he seems to 
have added to his Rembrandt teaching something of Correggio to produce 
a lighter, more easily penetrated shadow than others of the school. He 
seems also to have fallen into a mannerism (by which he is to be traced) of 
suffusing the whole front of the face or figure with shadow and relieving the 
thus-darkened silhouette against a light ground. - This and his sad mood 
are his most pronounced characteristics. His early work, such, for exam- 
ple, as the signed Bathsheba in the Louvre, is a little severe in drawing, 
hard on the edges, thin in pigment, and lacking in color. Later on he 
seems to have developed looser drawing, a fuller brush, especially in the 
high lights, and a pronounced color sense. The Young Woman in the 
Wallace Collection is not only free in the handling of the dress, but a 
handsome piece of color—in short, an excellent ‘picture. 

He seems to have been one of the most accomplished and original of the 
Rembrandt pupils, with much sensitiveness and feeling. Taken as a whole, 
his pictures present us with a new personality in art. And, again, I must 
insist that it is a personality apart from that of Rembrandt or any other 
of the school. The signed Drost in the Warburg Collection is alone suffi- 
cient to indicate his singularity. The painter, as reconstituted, becomes 
once more a man of marked distinction. How distinct he is may be 
determined by comparing the eight reproductions herein given with the 
eight Bols or Backers or Rembrandts also reproduced herein. Each group 


stands by itself and will not amalgamate with any of the other groups. 
60 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
F. M. WARBURG 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 61 


PICTURES BY DROST 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Curist APPEARING TO MAGDALENE 
Signed, Hanf. 

To be closely studied for the mood, the light and shade, the drapery. 
It is a key picture that leads to the understanding of Drost. The 
Magdalene is in dull red and blue, with a dull-red band in hair; the 
Christ is in white with a yellow halo. Hands stiff, fingers pointed. 
The picture has been somewhat injured. 


Otp Man in Har 
Signed. 

It is a profile in rather warm, golden color that may be partly due 
to old varnish. In sentiment, light, drawing, type it agrees with the 
Cassel Drost. Bitumen was probably used in the shadows, which has 
caused the picture to bubble and darken a little. 


Youna Woman 
Reproduced in Catalogue.* 

Formerly signed as a Rembrandt. Attributed by the Director of 
the Wallace Collection to Drost, because of its “‘marked resemblances” 
to the Louvre Bathsheba, which is a signed Drost. 


Portrait oF MAN 
Signed. 

An excellent portrait than which there are few better in the Rem- 
brandt euvre. It is to be closely studied, for it is the second key pic- 
ture on this list. Signed on letter held in hand. 


BATHSHEBA 
Signed 1654. 

An academic performance, with Drost’s sad sentiment in the face, 
but a little hard in modelling and lacking in color. The shadows are 
dark, the handling a little thin. 


Two or three other pictures in private possession, by Drost, are said to 
be signed and authentic, but are not put down here because of their in- 
accessibility to the student. An old print in the British Museum, of a 
boy, mezzotinted by Robert Williams, who flourished about 1700-1715, 
gives the original picture to Drost. The hands are in accord with the 
Drost hands in the Drost pictures given above. 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY DROST 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


SUSANNA 

Attributed in the Berlin catalogue to Flinck, with a question mark. Reproduced 
in “Das Weibliche Schinheit’s Ideal in der Malerei,” plate 183. K.K. 
Supp. 114.* 
It agrees in thought and feeling exactly with the Cassel picture. 


62 


BERLIN: 
CARSTANJEN 
COLLECTION 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


CAMBRIDGE: 
FITZWILLIAM 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Placing the photographs side by side will show this. Also it will reveal 
the same disposition of light and shade over the face and hair, the 
same drawing and handling, the same composition by masses of light 
and dark. It is a small gray picture, with golden hair, and a white 
cloth. Easily done, positively brushed and drawn, and effective all 
through. Note the face of the elder at the back with the narrow squint- 
ing eyes. It will suggest the type used in some of the heads of men 
that follow. Put down to Flinck without rhyme or reason. Doctor 
Valentiner attributes it to Rembrandt, but there can be no question 
about its being done by the painter of the Cassel picture. 


“*A finely illuminated back, better in lighting than in drawing, but a beau- 
tiful piece of modelling, nevertheless. There is much artistic feeling about 
it.’—New Guides to Old Masters, Berlin, p. 47. 


Stupy or Curist Bounp 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.386, B.317. 


In feeling, in drawing, in pose, in color, in the yellow hair and the 
yellow shadow on the face it speaks for Drost. Put together the photo- 
graphs of this study, the Rembrandt-Flinck Susanna of the Berlin 
Gallery, and the Christ and Magdalene of the Cassel Gallery. Whites 
are dragged over a red basing and grimed a little in the doing, or, per- 
haps, in after-rubbing. 


Portrait oF Younac Man 
Attributed to Vermeer of Delft. Reproduced in Hale, “‘Vermeer of Delft,” p. 92, 
also in Van Zype, “Vermeer of Delft,” p. 44. 


The false signature of Rembrandt 1644 was removed from the pic- 
ture as a forgery. This has always been a puzzling portrait and has 
been much attributed. One thing about it seems quite certain. It is 
not a Vermeer. In mood, sentiment, method; in the drawing of the 
mouth, nose, eyes, and eyebrows, the small dark streak on the upper 
lip, in the pose and costume—the hat, collar, black coat—it belongs to 
Drost. Compare it with the signed Drost portrait in the Warburg 
Collection. In only one respect is there disagreement, and that is in 
the hand. In this portrait it is thin and rather sharp. I account for 
that by saying it is in a very prominent place and is a portrait hand, 
done carefully and exactly. The usual rather large and fat Drost hand 
in close proximity to this thin face would be absurd. Drost here varied 
his formula for the hand to an exact likeness of the individual hand. 
Loosely painted, glove in hand, red lips slightly parted, dark gray or 
blackish background. In the National Gallery, London, a picture has 
been recently put together and assigned to Sweerts. Formerly the left 
half of it, showing a man and boy at a table, was attributed to Vermeer 
of Delft. The man presents analogies to this Brussels portrait in the 
type, costume, dark streak on upper lip, and the hand. It suggests 
also by likenesses the Warburg Drost. But I am not prepared to say 
it is by Drost, though its surface is very like the Louvre Bathsheba, 
and it may be an early work by Drost. 


Portrait oF A MAn 
(No. 87.) Attributed to Flemish School. 


It bears some resemblance to the Warburg Portrait by Drost. 
Assignment tentative. 


31. DROST: CHRIST AND MAGDALENE 


Cassel Gallery 


iJ) 
o 


DROST (GIVEN TO FLINCK): SUSANNA 


Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


33. DROST: PORTRAIT OF OLD MAN 34. DROST (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): CHRIST 
Dresden Gallery AT THE COLUMN 
Carstanjen Collection, Berlin 


Puate IX 


85. DROST: PORTRAIT OF MAN 36. DROST (GIVEN TO VERMEER OF DELFT): PORTRAIT 
Felix Warburg Collection, New York OF MAN 


Brussels Museum 


37. DROST: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG WOMAN 88. DROST (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): A SIBYL 
Wallace Collection, London Metropolitan Museum, New York 


PLATE X 


’ 4 4 ; - 
g 
_ 
bf 
} +s oo 
. hw - 
! : rh ; 
i " -s 
f J 
+S 
* 
: 
¢ ~ 
: - 2. . 
i a 

4 

As 

-_ 

= 

, sy & e 
a i 


ral 4 ve aie - 


DARMSTADT: 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
BREDIUS 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
LINDER 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
BUCCLEUCH 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
WESTMINSTER 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 63 


CHRIST AT THE COLUMN 
Signed Rembrandt 1668, K.K.471, B.534. 


The handling of this picture is absolutely at variance with Rem- 
brandt work of the 1660s. It is easily but not thickly painted, the 
high lights are not too accurately placed—on the sleeve, for example— 
the color is gold and red. The Christ has reddish hair, yellow flesh, a 
white loin cloth; the men at right and left have reddish breeches. The 
shadows are light and transparent, especially those across the face and 
body of Christ. The sentiment is that of Drost, as also the type of 
Christ. Compare it with the Carstanjen nude and the Cassel Christ 
and Magdalene. Assignment tentative. 


Man Ravine 
Signed Rembrandt. Reproduced ‘‘ Burlington Magazine,” May, 1920, p. 208, K.K. 

Supp. 56. 

Here is probably the same type as the first elder in the Berlin 
Susanna, put down to Flinck, but by Drost. The same drawing of the 
narrow eyes and thin mouth, the same problem of lighting by casting 
the whole face in shadow, the same rather melancholy mood. Note 
the ill-drawn hands and their large size. They appear in other pic- 
tures listed here. If further comparison is needed, place this head be- 
side the Portrait of a Man, the signed Drost in the Warburg Collec- 
tion, to establish identity of view and method, even to the drawing of 
the hand. Doctor Bredius, who writes the article in the Burlington, 
says there are copies of this picture in the Cook Collection, Richmond, 
and the Johnson Collection, Philadelphia. The Richmond picture is 
not a copy, but an original picture by Drost, handled in a manner that 
agrees with the Cassel Drost. 


CaPpucHIN FRIAR 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.457, B.484, Hanf.* 

It follows closely upon the Bredius, the Linder, and the Bohler 
pictures. The same spirit, the same problem of lighting, the same use 
of drapery, and especially the same heavy, ill-drawn hands, squint 
eyes, and high eyebrows. 


Reaping Monk 
Signed Rembrandt, 1661, K.K.460, B.483. Reproduced in Burlington Magazine, 

April, 1919. 

In perfect agreement with the Béhler, Bredius, National Gallery, 
London, pictures by Drost. The arrangement of light, the lines of the 
robe, the large hands and their peculiar drawing, the high eyebrows, 
even the sadness of mood, are the same in all four pictures. A return 
to the key picture at Cassel will find agreement again. 


Wire oF ReMBRANDT’S BROTHER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.423, B.395. 

The cowled head, the drawing of the eyes, and particularly the large, 
rather coarsely drawn hands, with the lines of the costume, point to 
Drost. It has, too, something of the Drost mood. Assignment ten- 
tative. 


Portrait oF Man 
Signed Rembrandt, 1647, K.K.342, B.362. 
Compare with the Warburg signed portrait by Drost for the general 


64 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


MUNICH: 
BOHLER 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


NEW YORK: 
HUNTINGTON 
COLLECTION 


SWEDEN: 
WACHT- 
MEISTER 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


look and feeling of the two pictures, remembering that they are por- 
traits and must vary in type. This Westminster picture is peculiarly 
Drost in the hand, but otherwise is not so pronounced a Drost as the 
other pictures here listed. Assignment tentative. 


PortTRAIT OF WOMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1647, K.K.343, B.363. 


Companion piece to portrait listed above. Less suggestive of Drost 
than the man’s portrait, except in the hands. Assignment tentative. 


Tue Risen CuHrist 
Signed Rembrandt 1661, K.K.462, B.416. 

With white robe, long reddish hair, and sad eyes. It is underbased 
in red, loaded in high lights, dragged and wiped. The shadows brown- 
ish. The Christ is the same model as in the Christ at the Column 
in the Darmstadt Museum. It is not absolutely certain that Drost did 
these Christ pictures. They have some things in common with pictures 
by Bernaert and Carel Fabritius, but they should for the present be 
put down to Drost. Assignment tentative. 


PoRTRAIT OF RABBI 
Attributed to Rembrandt. Reproduced in “‘Old Masters from Kleinberger Gal- 
leries,’” New York, 1911, plate 60, K.K.Supp. 65. 
This is the same model and the same hand as that shown in the 
Bredius picture listed above. This is too obvious to need argument. 
It is probably by Drost. 


A SIBYL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.386, B.528. 


The sathe model, with the same effect of the head bowed forward 
and the setting of the head in a round head-dress, as in the Wallace 
Collection Portrait of a Young Woman. This Metropolitan picture 
has, too, the narrow, squinting eyes and the high eyebrows of Drost’s 
other pictures, notably the Bathsheba in the Louvre. The casting of 
the whole front of the picture in shadow is a repetition of the form of 
composition peculiar to Drost. Finally the drawing and handling are 
the same as in the Wallace Collection picture. This Sibyl picture is 
much darkened and now difficult to make out in the background. 


HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Signed Rembrandt 1660, K.K.411, B.438. 

A sketchy portrait (with variations) of the model in the Louvre and 
Wallace Collection pictures by Drost. With the same inclination of 
the head, high eyebrows, placing of the hand and doing of the robe. 
Notice the manner in which the light on the robe is handled. And once 
more the pensive or sad mood. Compare it with the Wallace Collec- 
tion portrait. It is probably by Drost. 


PortRAIT OF A MAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1651, K.K.367, B.583. 

The same model and manner as shown in the Bohler, Linder, 
Bredius portraits, but done at an earlier period, probably when Drost 
was a student in the Rembrandt shop. These portraits, or more prop- 
erly study heads, stand or fall together. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 65 


DULLAERT, HEIMAN 
1636-1684 


Dullaert was a pupil of Rembrandt, probably after 1650, and later 
became a friend of Hoogstraten, Koninck, and other Rembrandt pupils. 
He was a poet and translator of Tasso, and as a painter did portraits, 
figures, and interiors, but his pictures are not now in existence. Hou- 
braken states that a Man in Armor, by Dullaert, was sold in Amsterdam 
as an original by Rembrandt. Several pictures are doubtfully ascribed to 
him. We are at a loss to know his style or quality or technique, and yet 
he was of enough importance to have his poems published, and a short life 
of him written by David van Hoogstraten. His portrait was painted by 
Philips de Koninck, the landscape painter, and is now in the Ehrich Galler- 
ies, New York. It is one of those odd portraits, done by one who was not 
a portrait painter, and of a kind and quality to confound the expert to 
confusion. Another version of it, showing a hand, is in the Neville Cooper 
Collection, London. 


EECKHOUT, GERBRAND VAN DEN 
1621-1674 


Eeckhout has been accounted a close follower of Rembrandt and one 
of his most talented and precocious pupils. At first he followed the Rem- 
brandt manner and probably did pictures to which Rembrandt gave merely 
a passing touch or two before adding his signature. He, later on, developed 
the historical picture, with diffused light and pallid color, but still retained 
high lights that were at times somewhat out of value. He also did small 
pictures and interiors in the manner of the little Dutchmen without ever 
aiming at the detail of Dou or Mieris. He is a contradictory painter in 
his different manners and is not easily followed. Mentally he lacked stam- 
ina, vacillated, was led off by every new prospect. Emotionally he was at 
times dramatic, pathetic, almost profound in his sympathy. Technically 
he weakened as he grew older and became ineffectual. It is almost impos- 
sible to summarize him unless we accept him as a man with the imitative 
faculty who followed the impulses of others as well as his own. And yet 
that hardly does him justice. He was a painter of much ability if not a 
thinker of great profundity. Like others of the school, his light was some- 
what obscured by the greater light of the master. Houbraken says that 
next to Roghman he was Rembrandt’s closest friend. 

A large number of pictures are put down to him, some of them of very 
questionable authenticity. The following list will be sufficient to establish 


66 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


his quality—a rather high quality and with much versatility and invention. 
Some shopwork, done by his helpers, passes under his signature and must 


be allowed for. 


lative genius. 


And one must also reckon with his imitative or assimi- 


He picked up suggestions from people like Flinck with easy 


facility and reproduced the effects of others with much cleverness. It is 
this work that perhaps emphasizes the vacillation or uncertainty in his 


output. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


AMSTERDAM: 
SIX COLLECTION 
BERGAMO: 
GALLERIA 
LOCHIS 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY EECKHOUT 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Woman TAKEN IN ADULTERY 
Reproduced in Catalogue. Hanf.* 

“Good grouping and good colour effect are here apparent. The kneeling 
woman and the bulky figure back of her, as well as the one at the right, are 
very forceful. Eeckhout was often rambling in his drawing and careless with 
heads, hands, and feet, but he almost always succeeded in giving bulk, body, 
grouping, and atmosphere.”—New Guides to Old Masters, Amsterdam, p. 17. 


Last SUPPER 
Signed 1664. 


SPORTSMAN RESTING 
Signed. Reproduced in Catalogue. 


THe BATHERS 
Signed: 


THe Woman TAKEN IN ADULTERY 


PORTRAIT OF SELF 
Reproduced “‘ Raccolte d’ Arte,’ Bergamo, p. 184. 


Mercury AnD ARGUS 
Signed 1666. 

In the spirit and style of the B. Fabritius at Cassel (No. 262) of the 
same subject. It should be used here in the Berlin Gallery for com- 
parison, especially in landscape, with the various Rembrandts in the 
gallery that are probably Eeckhouts. They are listed hereafter. 


CuRIst PRESENTED IN TEMPLE 

A late work of the kind that Eeckhout had manufactured in his 
shop with the help of others. But it agrees with the Rembrandt- 
Eeckhouts at Berlin, listed hereafter. 


Raisine or JArrus’s DAUGHTER 

Done with good central light and not bad color, but, all told, an 
indifferent performance. Valuable only because in the same room in 
the Berlin Museum are Eeckhouts of high quality, put down to Rem- 


brandt, in which certain analogies may be recognized. An early 
Eeckhout. 


39. EECKHOUT: JACOB’S DREAM 40. EECKHOUT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
Dresden Gallery ASCENSION 
Old Pinacothek, Munich 


( 


woF3 


a a ES 


41. EECKHOUT: RESTING SPORTSMAN 42. EECKHOUT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): DANIEL’S VISION 


Ryks Museum, Amsterdam Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


Pirate XI 


43. EECKHOUT: ANNA CONSECRATING HER SON 44. EECKHOUT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): BATHSHEBA 


Louvre, Paris Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


45. EECKHOUT: BATHERS 46. EECKHOUT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): DIANA 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam BATHING 
National Gallery, London 


Puate XII 


BERLIN: 
LIPPMANN 
SALE, 1912 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


BREMEN: 
KUNSTHALLE 


BUDAPEST: 
MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


FRANKFORT: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 


GRENOBLE: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 67 


SACRIFICE OF GIDEON 
Signed 1640. 


SOLOMON SACRIFICING TO IDOLS 
Signed 1664. 

A late work, ornate, with great temple interior, red robes, gold 
basins, and the like. Merely Eeckhout shopwork of his late time, but 
indicative of his changing nature. None of the Rembrandt pupils 
assumed so many styles at different periods as Eeckhout. He is al- 
ways a little puzzling. 


Topias AND ANGEL 
Signed. 
An indifferent work, probably done in the Eeckhout shop by helpers. 


SOPHONISBA 
Signed 1659. 

Another late commercial Eeckhout, but well done. With good 
textures, color, and light. Sophonisba in white satin with yellow silk 
over-mantle. 


Ruta anp Boaz 
Signed 1651. 

It is smooth, feeble, pretty—a pot-boiler with no suggestion of 
Rembrandt in it. It is typical of much cheap work done in the Eeck- 
hout shop by helpers and probably signed by Eeckhout, after the man- 
ner of Dutch masters of the time. 


SAMSON AND DELILAH 
Signed 1668. 


An Eeckhout shop piece, a little coarse, but not thick in pigment or 
freely handled. The light is dull, the color sombre. Probably Eeck- 
hout had little to do with it, notwithstanding his signature. 


PoMONA AND VERTUMNUS 
Signed 1669. 


PRESENTATION IN TEMPLE 
Signed 1671. 


JAcOB’S DREAM 
Signed 1669. Hanf.* 
An artificial but not unpleasing picture. 


Curist’s PRESENTATION IN TEMPLE 
Not signed. 


PoRTRAIT OF COMMELIN 
Signed.* 


Portrait oF Man 
Signed 1644. Reproduced in Gonse, ““Les Musées de France.” 


68 


HAMBURG: 
KUNSTHALLE 


HANOVER: 
LAPORTE SALE 


LILLE: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


NEW YORK: 
HISTORICAL 
SOCIETY 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


ROTTERDAM: 
MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 
Curist AMone Doctors 
Davip AND BATHSHEBA 


Tue Trrpute Monety 
Signed 1678. 


WINE ContTRACT 
Signed 1657. 


JESUS IN TEMPLE 
Signed 1662.* 

“Tt may be profitably compared with some of the work ascribed to Rem- 
brandt with so much positiveness in the various European galleries.... A 


good picture, with good color, light, and grouping of the figures.” —New Guides 
to Old Masters, Munich. 


ALEXANDER AND WIFE oF Darius 
Not signed. 


It is similar in composition to the Continence of Scipio picture, a 
signed Eeckhout in the New York Historical Society. 


CONTINENCE OF SCIPIO 
Signed. 


ALEXANDER AND WIFE OF Darius 
Signed 1670. 

Another version in Munich, Old Pinacothek. The pictures are not 
of the same size or exactly the same in composition. 


ALEXANDER AND Famity oF Darius 
Signed 1662. 


RutH anp Boaz 
Signed 1655. 

This picture should be compared with the Rembrandt of Abraham 
Sending Away Hagar (K.K.304, B.334), though the resemblance should 
not be too seriously considered. The so-called Rembrandt is probably 
by Victors, perhaps following Eeckhout. 


PICTURES BY EECKHOUT 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


SUSANNA AND ELDERS 
Signed Rembrandt 1647, K.K.289, B.322, Hanf.* 

With Eeckhout landscape and architecture at back, his steps in 
front, a pretty girl-model for Susanna, and characteristic types for 
elders, the one at back appearing in the Louvre Eeckhout of Anna 
Consecrating Her Son. The doing of the drapery and the lighting are 
quite as convincingly Eeckhout as the background buildings. At left 
a loop-hole out to landscape, figures on dark ground, rock at right with 
trailing vines. Susanna well indicated; her hands the same as in the 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


DUBLIN: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 69 


Eeckhout pictures here in the Berlin Gallery—the Daniel’s Vision, the 
Mercury and Argus, and the Presentation. The face is like that of the 
higher angel in the Dresden Eeckhout of Jacob’s Dream. Probably 
Eeckhout took the composition and pose of the figure, with the sugges- 
tion of landscape, from Flinck’s Susanna (given to Rembrandt) at The 
Hague, done possibly ten years before. Still conviction is not clearly 
established here for Eeckhout. There is some doubt about it, but for 
the moment it may be tentatively given to him. So stated in 1911 in 
my New Guides to Old Masters, Berlin. The Susanna of the Louvre, 
following this Berlin Susanna, is by another hand, as is also the Bonnat 
head of Susanna. 


DANIEL’s VISION 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.298, B.332, Hanf.* 


It is in perfect agreement with the Amsterdam Eeckhout of the 
Sportsman Resting. The drawing of the figure, the hair, the type, the 
bank is practically the same. It may also be compared in landscape, 
especially the bank, with the signed Eeckhout, Mercury and Argus, in 
this Berlin Museum (No. 829). Notice the dark ground, rock wall, 
bank with trailing vines, and scrap of sky seen only ina corner. Notice 
the same composition in the Tobias and Angel, given to Rembrandt in 
this gallery, and listed herein under Eeckhout. 


‘*A picture of decided merit in its drawing of figures, its landscape, its color, 
and its painting. But at just what period Rembrandt painted the pretty angel 
with the golden hair remains something of a mystery. Where else does he show 
this style or quality—in what picture, in what gallery? The picture comes 
nearer to a good example of Eeckhout or Bol.’”—New Guides to Old Masters, 
Berlin, p. 89. 


ToBIAS AND ANGEL 
Signed R., K.K.Supp. 62. 


Formerly called a Flinck. It is an Eeckhout in types, landscape, 
dog, composition, and light. Note the trailing vine from the rocks at 
right and the scrap of stormy sky at left, the dark ground with figures 
in light relieved upon it. It agrees with the Daniel’s Vision and the 
Mercury and Argus here in Berlin, and with the Sportsman picture at 
Amsterdam. Eeckhout, with figures or interiors or landscapes, is al- 
ways fond of a dark ground upon which he can lay bright colors and 
sharp high lights. Note that the dog drinking is the same dog shown 
in the Joseph’s Bloody Coat picture, put down to Rembrandt, but by 
Eeckhout. With a forged “R” upon this Berlin picture. 


CIRCUMCISION 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 104. 

This is said to be a studio copy of “the lost Circumcision of 1646,” 
but it is an Eeckhout original, and not a good one at that. It should 
be compared with the signed Eeckhout in the Louvre, Anna Conse- 
crating Her Son, with which it agrees in types, composition, drawing, 
color. There is little or no question about the Brunswick work being 
by the same hand as the Louvre work. 


Heap or Otp Man 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.357, B.372. 


This is the head of the Jacob of Joseph’s Bloody Coat of the Derby 
Collection. Done in the Eeckhout manner. 


70 


GLASGOW: 
CORPORATION 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM, 
BREDIUS 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
ALLENDALE 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
WESTMINSTER 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


ToBIAS AND THE ANGEL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.299, B.344. 
It is probably an Eeckhout shop sketch. 


Two NEGROES 
Signed Rembrandt 1661, K.K.495, B.513. 


The handling of the light, the brushing, the drawing all point to 
Eeckhout. The head of the foreground negro appears in the Conti- 
nence of Scipio, a signed and important Eeckhout in the Gallery of the 
New York Historical Society—the same model drawn in the same way. 
It will perhaps be contended that Eeckhout was merely following the 
Two Negroes of Rembrandt, but there is no argument for a following 
here. The Two Negroes is not a marvel. It is almost black and 
white, but has a shade of yellow in it. The high lights are laid on over 
the darks and dragged thinly for luminosity and to modify the dark 
underneath—a peculiarity of Eeckhout. It is merely an interesting 
study by Eeckhout. In 1911 I wrote of it: 


“The picture is flat, lacks depth and air, and is not well modelled or drawn. 
It is probably not by the painter of the Negro Head in the Berlin Gallery 
(No.. 825), Hendrick Heerschop. It is somewhat different from the Berlin 
picture. It is certainly not by Rembrandt.”—New Guides to Old Masters, The 
Hague, p. 86. 


Woman BatTHING 
Signed Rembrandt 1654, K.K.407, B.353. 

In a golden-brown tone with brown shadows. The whites of the 
shirt brushed down with a full brush. Background dark, a tree sug- 
gested at right. Easily handled in the style of Eeckhout, and prob- 
ably done by him. Assignment tentative. 


Diana BatTHING 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 33. 

In the manner of Eeckhout. Compare with the signed Eeckhout of 
Bathers in the Ryks Museum, Amsterdam, for both figures and land- 
scape. The dogs are those of the Amsterdam Sportsman by Eeckhout. 
The spot-lighting is also his. 


TriputE Money 
Signed Rembrandt 1656, K.K.380, B.403. 

Probably by the same hand that did the Joseph’s Bloody Coat of 
the Derby Collection and the Eeckhout Woman Taken in Adultery 
of the Ryks Museum and the Six Collection, Amsterdam. Note the 
types and drapery, the figure seated in the foreground, and the dis- 
tribution of the lights in spots. It has, too, the same emotional quality 
as the pictures cited. Assignment tentative. 


THE VISITATION 
Signed Rembrandt 1640, K.K.224, B.241. 

An earlier work than the Joseph’s Bloody Coat of the Derby Col- 
lection, but the types are nearly the same. Both the Mary and Eliza- 
beth are repeated in the Derby picture, also the dog. The architecture 
and distant city view are peculiar to Eeckhout’s work. 


LONDON: 
DERBY 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PICTURES BY PUPILS ya 


JosEPH’s BLoopy Coat 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.303, B.335. 

The Jewish types are Eeckhout’s, especially those at the extreme 
right, where the highest head is like that of the Madonna in the De- 
scent at the Hermitage. The old man’s head is found in the Ham- 
burg Eeckhout of Christ and the Doctors. The woman central appears 
frequently in Eeckhout. The composition by spots of light again points 
directly to Eeckhout, with the architecture, the kneeling figures, the 
dogs, especially the hound dog, which appears also in the Amsterdam 
signed Eeckhout of the Resting Sportsman—the dog crouching on the 
ground. It does not follow after other pictures by Eeckhout, for the 
reason that Eeckhout was vacillating and imitative—always trying 
something new. But the spirit and feeling of it is that of his other 
pictures. His emotional reaction was substantially the same. 


Tuer Descent 


Signed (“‘falsely,” according to the Munich Catalogue), C. Rlembrant, K.K.163, 
B.125, Hanf.* 


Tue Ratsine or THE Cross 
K.K.163, B.124, Hanf.* 

This picture has a suggestion of Solomon Koninck about it, espe- 
cially in the man on horseback. No signature or date. Both the 
Descent and the Raising were probably executed in part by Eeckhout. 
He was possibly helped by Rembrandt pupils in the Rembrandt shop 
in some of the execution. There is too much varied handling for any 
one hand, though even that matter is somewhat confused by restora- 
tions and repaintings. It is not probable that any picture of this 
series was done before 1639 or 1640, notwithstanding the date on the 
Ascension. The series was not completed according to the dating until 
after 1646.1 


Tue ASCENSION 
Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.165, B.127, Hanf.* 

To be compared closely with the signed Eeckhout of Joseph’s Dream 
in the Dresden Gallery. Not only is the composition of light and dark 
the same, but the building up of the figures is similar, the arrangement 
of the tree and figure at left in each is also similar. The chief angel 
type in the Joseph’s Dream is the same as the figure in white kneeling 
in the foreground of the Ascension. Follow also the handling in the 
drapery of the robes of the foreground angel and those of the Christ. 
Notice the way they are spread and ruffled at the bottom. The cherubs 
are similar in types and actions. All of the drawing is practically the 
same in both pictures. Belongs to the Passion Series. 


HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.327, B.350. 


With a golden tone coming from too much varnish, perhaps. Dress 
brownish, red feathers at right and left of head. Done with a light 
brush, with downward strokes in the white undervest and overlaying 
strokes across the shoulder to lighten the material. Eeckhout’s type 
and method all through—especially the handling, which is unmistak- 
ably his. Compare for brushwork with the Two Negroes at The Hague, 
given to Rembrandt but by Eeckhout. 


1The chronology of these pictures is confused by false signatures and false dates. See Michel, Rembrandt, 


vol. I, p. 159. 


72 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


BATHSHEBA 


Signed 1654, K.K.374, B.354. 

There are analogies here that might be pointed out in the attend- 
ant, the robe at back, the doing of the white cloth, the drawing, 
and yet it must be said that doubts remain. The assignment is ten- 
tative. It needs confirmation. There are resemblances here to Horst 
in the attendant and in the figure of Bathsheba. 


PETROGRAD: Tue DrEscEent . 
HERMITAGE Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.164, B.126, Hanf.* 

No weight should be attached to the date or signature. A variation 
of the Munich picture, perhaps done after the Munich version. It is 
in a darker scheme of light and is almost certainly by Eeckhout. The 
type and drawing of the swooning Madonna would alone almost con- 
firm his hand in the picture. Notice the likeness in the Madonna to 
the dreaming Jacob in Jacob’s Dream of the Dresden Gallery—a 
signed Eeckhout. There are one or more variations of this picture, 
possibly done by Rembrandt pupils following Eeckhout. 


STOCKHOLM: Youne Grru at WINDOW 
MUSEUM Signed Rembrandt 1651, K.K.325, B.397. 

Once more the spirit, type, and manner of Eeckhout are here 
shown. It suggests in some way the Polish Rider (K.K.435), which 
has been attributed to Eeckhout, but with no certainty. Notice the 
pronounced out-of-value whites. 


SURESNES: Stupy Hrap 
NARDUS K.K.540. 
COLLECTION A study head of the foremost elder in the Susanna and Elders of the 


Berlin Gallery. 


If the pictures by Eeckhout are placed together in reproductions they 
will not reveal so positive a personality as, say, Drost or Horst or Backer, 
because Eeckhout was, as I have said, vacillating in purpose and dis- 
posed to try many different ways and routes in art. Still a series of repeti- 
tions, analogies, and likenesses, both mentally and technically, runs through 
all his works, so that the man may be followed with considerable certainty. 


ESSELENS, JACOB 
1626-1687 


A landscape painter of the Rembrandt school, few of whose works are 
now extant. Immerzeel mentions him, but there the record stops. His 
pictures suggest that he had travelled and seen the works of other painters. 
He does not show as a great original, but merely as a capable painter. Of 
his pictures the following are still under his name. 


AMSTERDAM: ON THE STRAND 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed. 


BRUNSWICK : 
GALLERY 


COPENHAGEN: 
MUSEUM 


GLASGOW: 
CORPORATION 
GALLERY 


LEIPSIC: 
MUSEUM 


PARIS: 
SCHLOSS 
COLLECTION 


ROTTERDAM: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 73 


Mountain LANDSCAPE 
Signed. 

With ruins in foreground, nude figure, red and blue garments, blue 
sky, water in foreground. Suggestive of possibilities in the mountain 
landscapes assigned to Rembrandt. 


Bracu SCENE 
Signed. 


With smoky white clouds rising into the sky, gray Van Goyen hills, 
sea and distance. Foreground shows sails and small figures. 


THe Hunt MEET 
Signed. 
With small figures in foreground and a green-blue distance. 


STRAND SCENE 
Signed. 

Beach scene with figures, sails, rising clouds. 
least, suggestive of Verschuring. 


In the style or, at 


SHORE PIECE 
Signed. 


Woop LANDSCAPE 
Signed. 
With small figures and dogs in foreground. 


CHAPTER IX 
PICTURES BY PUPILS 


(CONTINUED) 


FABRITIUS, BERNAERT 
1624-1673 


ITH Bernaert and Carel Fabritius one meets with confused and con- 
tradictory testimony. Almost all the data about them are lost. 
Bernaert seems to have been a Rembrandt pupil before 1650, and perhaps 
as early as 1640. He signed pictures from 1650 up to 1672. His pictures 
are said to have closely followed Rembrandt’s, but one does not get such 
an impression from the pictures by him that remain. He seems to have 
been a very serious-minded, rather sombre person, if one may judge by his 
signed works. They show blackish shadows, shadow-saturated colors, flat 
simple handling of the brush, large planes, and large masses in composi- 
tion. The exception to the sombre is shown in his children’s portraits, 
which are very winning and charming, in a warm tone, and beautifully 
handled. For examples, note the children in the Peter in the House of 
Cornelius at Brunswick. If the Titus portraits, that I have put down 
to him tentatively, are his work, then his mood becomes still brighter and 
his handling more varied and effective. There is an early tendency toward 
heads and hands a little out of scale, as shown in the Bergamo picture, and 
toward rather intense types, as shown in the Vienna and Frankfort heads. 
The full measure of the man has not by any means been taken. We 
shall have to await the discovery of more of his pictures. But from what 
works we have by him we know him to be an original and accomplished 
painter. The emphasis heretofore has been thrown on Carel Fabritius, 
and Bernaert is supposed to have been his follower, but there is apparently 
no reason for this. Nor is there reason for saying that he followed Eeck- 
hout. He was sufficient unto himself. It is apparent in several portraits 
that the brothers were close together in methods and view-point at one 
time and probably influenced one another to some extent; but beyond that 


each seems to have been individual and creative. 
14 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


ARRAS: 
MUSEUM 


BERGAMO: 
GALLERY 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


COPENHAGEN: 
MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


DARMSTADT: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 15 


PICTURES BY BERNAERT FABRITIUS 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


PORTRAIT OF THE ARCHITECT WILLEM VAN DER HELM AND 


FAMILY 
Signed 1655, Hanf. 

Agrees with the Vienna Academy and the Frankfort Staedel Insti- 
tute portraits, except that it is more official and a little smoother, as 
were all these family groups and regent pictures. Early work. 


ABRAHAM RECEIVING ANGELS 
Signed 1664. 


SATYR AND PEASANT FAMILY 
Signed. Reproduced as frontispiece to ‘‘Raccolte d’ Arte,’ Bergamo. 


Peter iN House or CorNELIUS 
Signed 1653. 

With dark, rather blackish shadows. Peter very tall, red table- 
cloth right, dull reds in gowns at left. The whites are cold. The 
painting in the robes is done with a downward stroke. Rather thinly 
but easily done. Early work. Notice the types of children that after- 
hah ie in the early portraits of the so-called Titus, son of Rem- 

ranat. 


Mercury AND ARGUS 
Signed 1662, Hanf. 

Similar to same subject by Eeckhout at the Berlin Museum. A 
third picture of same subject in the Beets’ Collection at Amsterdam 
ascribed to Rembrandt (K.K.Supp. 115). Flatly painted, not thumbed 
or kneaded, with free but not loaded brush, shadows dark, Argus in 
bright red garment, Mercury in dull blue. 


PRESENTATION IN TEMPLE 
Signed 1668. 

The color is variegated, as are also the types. The picture shows in 
architecture, costumes, and figures some slight Italian influence. Well 
drawn, with reds in caps and blue and yellow in robes. The young 
girls are round of face and short of chin. 


Portrait oF YouNG WoMAN 

Said to be a copy of Rembrandt’s Hendrickje Stoffels in Metropoli- 
tan Museum, New York, but the Metropolitan picture is by Bernaert 
Fabritius, not Rembrandt. This Dresden picture is probably a replica 
by Fabritius. It is not a copy. It is freely painted, with sharp brows, 
blackish shadows from dark underbasing, red-rouged lips. Darker than 
the Metropolitan picture. 


MoruHer ComBinG CuHILp’s Harr 
Signed falsely Rembrandt 1652. 

Now given to Bernaert Fabritius, but there may be some doubt 
about it. The Fabritius color and dark shadows are lacking. A good 
picture that can be assigned to Fabritius only in a tentative way. 


76 


FRANKFORT: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


SCHWERIN: 
MUSEUM 


STOCKHOLM: 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
ACADEMY 


BERLIN: 
KAPPEL 
COLLECTION 


CAMBRIDGE: 
FITZWILLIAM 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Birth oF JoHN Baptist 
Signed 1669. 

The signature may be questioned, but the picture is probably by 
Fabritius, though by no means important. A picture of the same sub- 
ject in National Gallery, London. Neither speaks very loudly for 
Fabritius, though both are probably genuine. 


Youne Man with Rep Coat 
Signed 1650. 

Smoothly and flatly painted; not loaded, thumbed, or dragged; in 
fact, rather thinly done. It agrees perfectly with the Vienna Academy 
Young Man in Shepherd Costume, except that here even the small 
high lights are missing. 


Birtu oF Joun Baptist 


It agrees with the Brunswick picture, especially in types and 
color. 


ADORATION OF SHEPHERDS 
It is questionable if it be by Fabritius. 


Bust or Man 
Not in Catalogue and attributed only. 


In red cap and cloak, yellow under-robe, white at neck. Thin, 
sharp face, long nose, hollow-eyed. A questionable Fabritius. 


HaGar 
Signed 1650. 


Youne MAN IN SHEPHERD DRrEss 
Signed. 

An excellent picture. With a green garland of leaves over shoulder. 
Easily done, but not with a loaded brush. On the contrary, it is thinly 
and flatly painted. High lights in small dots only. Shadows in eye 
sockets and elsewhere rather dark. Dress done with flat strokes. 
The hand on the stick should be carried into the National Gallery and 
compared with the hands of the Rembrandt Portrait of a Woman 
(K.K.508), a picture done by Fabritius. Reds at sleeve and in lips 
and nostrils. Hair falling free. 


PICTURES BY BERNAERT FABRITIUS 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 59. 
The same type as that in the Metropolitan Museum Hendrickje 


and done in precisely the same way. It is perhaps a first study for the 
former picture. 


PoRTRAIT OF A CHILD 
Attributed to Nicolaes Maes. 


Little girl in brownish-red dress, golden-colored cap with white 
edge, white cuffs, golden braid on dress, red tablecloth, green curtain, 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
SIR ROBERT 
WITT 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS an 


red cherries in left hand, branch with fruit on table. The child has 
red spots on cheeks, white high lights in eyes, with brownish-red 
background and black-and-white tiled floor as in the Brunswick Peter 
in the House of Cornelius picture. The shadows are in long, dark 
streaks, flatly brushed. All the handling is flat and easily done, the 
first intention carrying through without change or addition. The flat 
handling and the fruit agree exactly with the Vienna picture. 


Man 1n Armor, CALLED “THe Watcu” 
Signed Rembrandt 1655 over an earlier inscription, K.K.432, B.464. 

It has no mark of Rembrandt, not even in the untrue signature. It 
has the dark shadows, sharp brows, long fingers, blackish nails, and flat 
brushing of Bernaert Fabritius, and is probably by him. Compare 
sires the Man in Red Cap at Dresden and the Rothschild Portrait at 

aris. 


Man 1n Rep Fur Cap 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.432, B.467, Hanf.* 

With Fabritius reds, dark shadows, large hand, flat brushing. Coat 
touched with short downward brush strokes, easily, but not conspicu- 
ously, producing high lights. Brows a little sharp and fingers long. 
It is, too, in the Fabritius mood. It was formerly known and attrib- 
uted to Fabritius, but later authority has arbitrarily promoted it to 
the Rembrandt rank. Not signed. 


PorTRAIT OF WoMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1666, K.K.508, B.499.* 


Almost any one should be able to say that this is not the mental 
view, nor has it the technical style of Rembrandt. The drawing of the 
hands, the treatment of the surface, the shadows, the black-and-whites 
are not his. They are nearer Bernaert Fabritius than any other painter 
known in the Rembrandt School. Compare the hands with that in 
the Vienna Young Man in Shepherd Dress. Compare the drawing 


‘with the Young Man at Frankfort by Fabritius. 


Portrait oF YOUNG GIRL 
Attributed to Bol. 

The color and shadows, with a certain flat handling of the brush, 
seem to put this fine picture in the class with the Frankfort and Vienna 
portraits by Fabritius. Sir Robert Witt, an authority on Dutch pic- 
tures, thinks differently and gives it to Bol, but it seems too strong for 
Bol. It is placed here to Fabritius tentatively. 


HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Not signed, K.K.Supp, 87. 

Another version of this picture, attributed to Fabritius, is in the 
Dresden Gallery—it being supposed that the Metropolitan picture is a 
Rembrandt and that Fabritius, as his pupil, copied it. There are four 
pictures of this model (not necessarily Hendrickje) in existence. They 
are this Metropolitan picture; the Bathsheba, a signed Drost in the 
Louvre; Hendrickje at a Window in the Berlin Museum, probably by 
Rembrandt (K.K.409); and a Hendrickje Stoffels in the Mendelssohn 
Collection, Berlin (K.K.410). The model in all of them seems about 
the same age, except in the Mendelssohn picture she seems a little 
older. The Drost is identified by signature, the Metropolitan picture 


78 


NEW YORK: 
FRICK 
COLLECTION 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
ROTHSCHILD 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


is probably by Bernaert Fabritius, the Berlin one by Rembrandt, the 
Mendelssohn picture is by an unknown contemporary of Fabritius, 
whose identity cannot as yet be established. 

This Metropolitan picture is in the dark, rather sombre Fabritius 
mood, is flatly painted and peculiarly marked by its Fabritius red— 
quite a different red from that of Rembrandt or Maes or any pupil of 
the school. It agrees very well with the portraits by Fabritius at 
Frankfort and Vienna. Compare it with the child portrait of Titus in 
this gallery, supposed to be by Rembrandt, but by Fabritius. 


Portrait oF Titus 
Signed Rembrandt 1655, K.K.413, B.442. 

In agreement with the Hendrickje in the same room of the Metro- 
politan. It also agrees with the fine portrait in the Cook Collection at 
Doughty House, is, in fact, the same model at a later date, given with 
less spirit and verve and more melancholy. These child-portraits hark 
back to the children in the Fabritius Centurion picture at Bruns- 
wick. 


PortrRAIT OF Man 
Signed Rembrandt 1648?, K.K.345, B.365. 

It runs close to the work of Carel Fabritius (whom Bernaert is 
supposed to have followed) with black shadows and the Fabritius som- 
breness. In type and pose it is like the Amsterdam Architect portrait. 
An excellent portrait. Assignment tentative. 


Portrait oF Titus 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.336, B.440. 

Done with great ease in the lightest and most flaky brushing of 
Fabritius. It has much verve and color charm. For the type one 
finds perhaps the same model—at least done in the same way—in the 
two little children in the signed Brunswick picture, Peter in the 
House of Cornelius. Notice the way the hair is treated in the children 
of both pictures. The hair in the Cook picture is yellow, the face pale 
with red spots in the cheeks, as in the Cambridge Portrait of a Little 
Girl. These two pictures, with the Vienna Portrait in Shepherd Cos- 
tume cannot be studied in their flat handling without a feeling that 
Fabritius must have seen some picture of Velasquez. The handling is 
quite different from that of any painter in the Rembrandt School. Also 
these portraits lead one to the conclusion that Bernaert Fabritius was per- 
haps the most distinguished of the Rembrandt pupils. He and Aert de 
Gelder have vastly more distinction than the Bols, Flincks, and Eeck- 
houts. Doctor Hofstede de Groot suggests that the subject of the 
Cook picture is the young Prince of Orange, William the Third, and he 
accounts for Rembrandt’s unusual handling in this picture by saying 
“that no method was strange to the great artist.” 


Portrait OF MAn 
Aitributed to Rembrandt, K.K.541, B.468. 

There is an eighteenth-century engraving done by J. F. de Frey of 
this portrait, upon which is the name of “Drost, pinxit 1654”; but the 
portrait itself seems more like Fabritius than Drost. Compare it with 
the Bergamo Satyr and Peasant Family (Raccolte d’ Arte, Bergamo, 
frontispiece), and the type of man reappears in the Satyr; also the 
hands are the peasant’s hands. The brushing, too, is much the same. 


: iT} , 


i ae 
oy 


sani Fe 
47. B. FABRITIUS: YOUNG MAN IN SHEPHERD COSTUME 48. B. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Vienna Academy : OF TITUS 
Metropolitan Museum, New York 


49. B. FABRITIUS: YOUNG MAN 50. B. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Staedel Institute, Frankfort OF WOMAN 


National Gallery, London 


Puate XIII 


2, B. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
OF HENDRICKJE STOFFELS 
Metropolitan Museum, New York 


51. B. FABRITIUS: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG WOMAN 5 
HENDRICKJE) 


Dresden Gallery 


53. B. FABRITIUS: ARCHITECT AND FAMILY 54. B. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam OF MAN 
Frick Collection, New York 


PuatTe XIV 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 79 


It agrees with the Dresden Man in Red Fur Cap, and a similar model 
is in the Brunswick Cornelius picture and the Cassel picture of The 
Watch. But it may be admitted that there is some confusion here 
between the late pupils of Rembrandt, such as Drost and Fabritius, 
and perhaps others whose work we do not know at all. 


FABRITIUS, CAREL 
1614 ?-1654 


Carel Fabritius is the most praised of all Rembrandt’s students because, 
perhaps, he died early, and, because again, we know little about him. 
However, what we do know about him indicates that he was a painter of 
ability and originality. Jan Vermeer of Delft is supposed to have been 
his pupil. With his brother, Bernaert Fabritius, the trio make something 
mysterious and uncertain in art history. One knows uncertainly the dis- 
tinctive style of either brother or the great pupil. See the note hereafter 
on Jan Vermeer. A summary of Carel Fabritius at the present time could 
only be tentative. The thing now worth while, perhaps, is to list his 
pictures as best one may, with the understanding that they are subject 
to change. 

PICTURES BY CAREL FABRITIUS 


SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: ABRAHAM DE NOTTE 
RYKS MUSEUM {Signed 1640, Hanf.* Reproduced in “‘ Burlington Magazine,” May, 1921. 
Flat painted in the coat, simply done in face, based in brown, 
smeared and dragged a little, but in agreement with the Rotterdam 
portrait. 


SALOME witH Hap or JOHN BaprTist 

Formerly attributed to Rembrandt. The types hardly suggest 
Fabritius. They are more select than we associate with this painter. 
The drawing and handling are smooth and rather academic, in accord 
with a half-academic subject. It is underbased in brown, like the 
Rotterdam portrait. 


GHENT: PortTRAIT OF WOMAN 
MUSEUM Attributed. Reproduced in ‘‘ Burlington Magazine,’ May, 1921. 
The attribution is by Mr. Percy Moore Turner, and seems war- 
ranted. 
THE HAGUE: THe LINNET 
MUSEUM Signed 1654, Hanf.* Reproduced in “‘ Burlington Magazine,” May, 1921. 


White ground, gray box, linnet with red on bill and yellow on wing. 
Name signed conspicuously, 1654. Affords little clew to Fabritius’ 
other works. 


Portrait oF OLD WoMAN 
Formerly attributed to Rembrandt. Now given to Carel Fabritius. 
It is small and not important. Attribution is questionable. 


80 


THE HAGUE: 
HOFSTEDE 
DE GROOT 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


ROTTERDAM: 
MUSEUM 


SCHWERIN: 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


THe WARRIOR 
Attributed. 


The attribution is generally accepted. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
(No. 2080.) 


Perhaps the same model as in the Rotterdam so-called portrait of 
Fabritius. Black hat and coat, red collar and under-jacket, square 
modelled nose, loosely painted hair. Formerly attributed to Rem- 
brandt. 


PoRTRAIT OF PAINTER 
Signed. Reproduced in “Burlington Magazine,’ May, 1921. 


Formerly falsely signed with name of Rembrandt. Twice signed 
with name of Fabritius, one signature scratched through the wet paint, 
the other dated 1645. A gray-green ground, brownish coat and hair, 
red lips, blue dragged on upper lip and under eyes. Easily but thinly 
brushed. Based in brown with high lights dragged over it, leaving 
dark sockets for the eyes. The brown shows through at throat and 
elsewhere. The hair loosely done. A portrait of much virility and 
intensity. 


SOLDIER AT GATE 
Signed 1654. Reproduced in “‘ Burlington Magazine,” May, 1921. 


A plainly signed, well-preserved, and excellent picture. A dull 
band is hanging from the shoulder of the man. The light is excellent, 
the shadows luminous, the high lights dragged a little as in the Linnet 
picture at The Hague, but nothing is thumbed or kneaded or laid on 
with heavy impasto. The handling is flat and not marked. The pic- 
ture has a modern look, and is half-impressionistic in the treatment of 
the vines. It neither agrees nor disagrees entirely with other pictures 
attributed to Carel Fabritius. It leads nowhere, has no significance 
as a criterion or even a clew, and apparently stands by itself. 


Several other pictures are attributed to Carel Fabritius—the Guard at 
Rome, the Balaam picture at Amsterdam—but they are too uncertain to 
accept as typical of the painter. A picture by Fabritius, of small size, 
showing a merchant in a booth, has recently been acquired by the 
National Gallery, London. 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY CAREL FABRITIUS 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


Youna Man 
Attributed to the Holland School (No. 713). Reproduced in “ Burlington Maga- 
zine,” May, 1921. 
The attribution to Carel Fabritius is by Mr. Perey Moore Turner 
and is probably correct. 


55. C.FABRITIUS: PORTRAIT OF THE PAINTER . 56. C. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Boymans Museum, Rotterdam OF MAN 
Schwab Collection, New York 


57. C. FABRITIUS: ABRAHAM DE NOTTE 58. C. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): VENUS 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam AND LOVE 
Louvre, Paris 


PLATE XV 


59. C. FABRITIUS: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 60. C. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO HOLLAND SCHOOL): 
Old Pinacothek, Munich PORTRAIT OF MAN 
Brussels Museum 


62. VERMEER OF DE LFT: A GEOGRAPHER 
Staedel Institute, Frankfort 


61. C. FABRITIUS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
OF MAN 
Old Pinacothek, Munich 


Puate XVI 


7 


face 


ree 


72 
ok: 


LEIPSIC: 
MUSEUM 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


NEW YORK: 
SCHWAB 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 81 


PorTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.318, B.347. 


It is handled and has a surface like the Fabritius portrait of himself 
at the Boymans Museum, Rotterdam. There is some reason for 
thinking it by Fabritius, and none whatever for thinking it by Rem- 
brandt. But the attribution must be considered as tentative. 


PortTRAIT OF YouNG Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.481, B.527. 

The picture was formerly (and rightly perhaps) given in the Munich 
Catalogue to Carel Fabritius. In 1922 the picture was in the Aschaf- 
fenburg Gallery. The dragging of small high lights in white threads, 
the touch of the brush in the whites, the rather hard drawing of the 
eyes and brows, the hair, point to Fabritius. The coat is in red and 
yellow, with crisscrossed slashings of high light. The same model and 
some of the pose were probably used by Vermeer of Delft in his Astron- 
omer in the Staedel Institute at Frankfort (illustrated herein), show- 
ing the influence of his master (Fabritius) upon him. This Fabritius 
influence is apparent in certain famous portraits put down to Vermeer 
of Delft hereafter. 


Portrait oF Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.502, B.526. 

To be closely compared with the Fabritius portrait of himself in the 
Rotterdam Museum for the drawing of the face, in every detail of fore- 
head, eyes, nose, mouth, chin Also compare for light and dark, the 
brushing of the hair, and costume. An excellent portrait. Attribution 
tentative. 


VENUS AND LOVE 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.480, B.439.* 

The telltale color of the Cupid’s garb is the first clew to strike the 
eye here. It is the same red cross-slashed with gold which one sees in 
the Portrait of a Young Man at Munich (K.K.481). With that clew 
given, the drawing, handling, and lighting offer confirmation. The 
hands are long and pointed (notice particularly the hands of the Cupid), 
dimpled in the knuckles, the eyebrows high, the high lights rather long 
and threadlike in whites, as is common with Carel Fabritius. Com- 
pare the hands in this picture with those in the Munich Portrait of a 
Young Man. 


FLINCK, GOVERT 
1615-1660 


Flinck was not such an original character as either Bernaert or Carel 


Fabritius. 


He had something of a genius for assimilation and his ability 


was in measure an adaptability. He knew how to turn other people’s 
inventions to his own account. Like Bol and Eeckhout, he was always 
more or less superficial, putting forth a smooth and pleasing exterior, but 
with no great body or substance beneath it. Vondel in verse called him 
*Apelles Flinck,” from which one might infer that he knew as little about 
Flinck as about Apelles. 


82 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Flinck was, with Backer, under Rembrandt’s instruction as early prob- 
ably as 1633 or 1634, leaving the Rembrandt shop perhaps in 1636. He 
learned the early gray manner of Rembrandt, rather exaggerated it in catch 
points of high light upon jewels, silks, and still-life, and varied it by a 
facile handling of the brush. He developed a view-point of his own in 
color and was given to combinations of blue, purple, and green, especially 
in costumes and flowers. He also had a way of doing eyes that stare and 
give an alert look to his characters. And this, too, with much good draw- 
ing, clever composition, and easy brushwork. 

He was later impressed by the Rubens-Van Dyck painting at Antwerp 
and inclined toward the sweep-and-trail of the academic brush rather than 
the broken and modelled surface of the Rembrandt school. Moreover, 
the Van Dyck fashion of making nobility look a little nobler than reality 
appealed to him. He liked elegance and aspired to classic form. Toward 
the end of his career he leaned toward the Italians. All his life he was 
producing an art somewhat more aristocratic in types than his models 
warranted. 

Flinck produced many pictures and has many still standing to his name 
in European galleries. Some of the early ones were appropriated to Rem- 
brandt, but his latter-day productions were too superficial to pass under 
any other than his own name. His pictures are often confused with those 
of Bol, Lievens, and Eeckhout. For examples, The Appearance to the 
Shepherds, at the Louvre, is by Flinck, but it has features about it that 
suggest Eeckhout, and two portraits at the Hermitage put down to Flinck 
are apparently by Lievens. And sometimes the Flinck signature is doubt- 
ful. He had a popular success all his life, and his pictures were in demand 
enough to excite occasionally the cupidity of the forger and imitator. This 
renders, once more, the establishment of a positive personality rather 
difficult. Besides, Flinck himself was not too positive a person. He 
vacillated, somewhat like Eeckhout and Bol. They were all clever, accom- 
plished painters, but they had not the mind or the emotional element of 
painters like Drost, or Bernaert Fabritius, and hence left no such positive 
record. 


PICTURES BY FLINCK 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: THe ALBERT Bas CoMPANY 
RYKS MUSEUM = _ (No. 924.) Signed 1645. 


CHIEFS OF THE ARQUEBUSIERS 
Signed 1642, Hanf. 


AMSTERDAM: 
SIX 
COLLECTION 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
WEBER SALE, 
1912 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 83 


FETE oF Civic GUARD 
(No. 925.) Signed 1648, Hanf.* 


PortTRAIT OF LEEUWEN 
Signed 1636. 


GERARD PIEtTEeRz HULFT 
Signed 1654. 


PorTRAIT OF AMALIA VON SOLMS 
Signed 1654. 


GozE CENTEN 
Attributed.* 


An early Rembrandtesque portrait, once given to Rembrandt, but 
done in the early manner of Flinck. 


PoRTRAIT OF UITENBOGAERT 


Tsaac BLESSING JACOB 
Signed 1638. 


The best of the Flincks in the Ryks Museum. It is in the style of 
Rembrandt. 


“Worse pictures than this by Flinck have passed for Rembrandts. It is 
good in color and light, if heavy in handling and somewhat weak in drawing.” 
—New Guides to Old Masters, Amsterdam, p. 20. 


Isaac BLEssinc JACOB 
Signed. 


PorTRAIT OF YOUNG WoMAN 
Signed 1641. 


An unusual Flinck, a bit sharp in drawing, and with an effort at 
textures in the transparent kerchief. The flesh notes brilliant. 


ABRAHAM SENDING Away HAGAR 
Signed. 


Very well drawn, and a fairly representative Flinck. The central 
group of three is well held together in a notable landscape. A warm 
tone in reds, browns, and greens, the whole luminous and atmospheric. 
The landscape and castle to be compared with those in the Susanna 
(given to Rembrandt) at The Hague. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
Signed 1640. 


PortTRAIT OF GIRL 
Signed 1636. 

An excellent example of Flinck, both in type, subject, and color. 
Reddish-purple hat with field flowers, blue scarf, reddish-brown dress, 
hands, cheek, and mouth red. Thinly but easily painted. The color 
here is a clew to other pictures by Flinck, now under Rembrandt’s name. 


84 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
PORTRAIT 
EXHIBITION 
1903 


HAMBURG: 
KUNSTHALLE 


LEYDEN: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Outp Man 1n Rep Cap 
Signed 1639, Hanf.* 


The model appears again in the Appearance to the Shepherds, by 
Flinck, in the Louvre. 


Man 1n Buack Cap 
Signed 1643. 


Davip Gtvine LetrtTerR to URIAH 
Attributed, Hanf. 


The only one of the three Flincks at Dresden not signed, but the 
most characteristic Flinck in the gallery, except the so-called Rembrandt 
of Saskia. (No. 1556), which is by Flinck. 


Portrait oF MAN 
Signed 16 ? 2? 


Girt NEAR A CHAIR 
Signed 1640.* 


In kind like work of Cuyp and others, but exceptional in theme 
and not showing Flinck characteristics in any marked degree. 


CHRIST AS GARDENER 

Said to be a copy after the Buckingham Palace Rembrandt. It is 
perhaps a Flinck shop copy, because Flinck probably did the Bucking- 
ham picture. 


PortTRAIT OF LADY 
Portrait oF MAn 


PortTrRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 
Signed 1637. 


PortrAIt OF YOUNG GIRL 

With the wide-apart, round eyes peculiar to Flinck and in his man- 
ner as regards the dress, high lights, and arrangement of the figures. 
With the false signature of Rembrandt, according to the gallery cata- 
logue. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
Signed 1640. 


In black, with yellow gloves in right hand, hat in left hand. 


PortTRAIT OF YOUNG WomMAN 
Attributed, reproduced in Catalogue. 


A handsome portrait, warm in coloring, and quite faultless in its 
drawing and brushing. 


APPEARANCE TO SHEPHERDS 
Signed 1639. 


Younc GIRL AS SHEPHERDESS 
Signed 1641.* 


With flowers in her hair. Easily done. 


PARIS: 
STEENGRACHT 
SALE, 1913 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 

ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


ENGLAND: 
ELGIN 
COLLECTION 


GLASGOW: 
CORPORATION 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 85 


Portrait oF Man AND WoMAN 
Signed 1648. 


PORTRAIT OF OFFICER 
Signed 1637.* 


RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL 


GRASWINCKEL AND WIFE 
Signed 1646. 

Small figures in landscape, black costumes with plum-colored under- 
dress of woman showing slightly. Landscape has blue-green tone. 


DIANA AND ENDYMION 
Attributed by experts to Flinck, but in the gallery still listed as by Rembrandt. 

It is in Flinck’s manner, with his coloring and certain studio prop- 
erties, such as the fat dog. 


PICTURES BY FLINCK 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


PORTRAIT OF SASKIA 
Signed 1633, K.K.126, B.151. 

A comparison of this portrait with that of the Young Girl portrait 
in the Brunswick Museum, signed Flinck in 1636, can leave little 
doubt about the common origin of both pictures. They have the same 
commonplace, rather vulgar conception and feeling, and the same point 
of view. Technically the handling is identical. The color is repeated 
in the purples of the hats and the blues of the dresses. The photo- 
graphs will show similar identity in drawing and pose. If there is any 
doubt that this is not Rembrandt, or Rembrandt’s Saskia, go in the 
large room of this Dresden Gallery and study the Rembrandt Saskia 
with the Red Flower, and the Rembrandt (by Bol) of Rembrandt with 
Saskia on His Knee. Here are three alleged Rembrandt Saskias. Are 
they the same model, are they seen in the same way, or painted by 
the same hand? This Flinck Saskia is under glass, which gives it a 
color quality it does not possess in reality. The handling, as in the 
Brunswick picture, is flat, sweeping in the oval of the chin and cheek. 
Add the color and the inclination of the head, and the picture becomes 
an undoubted Flinck. Another varied version in London. 


SASKIA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.128, B.152. 

It is the same model as in the Kramer (Paris) picture. Note the 
handling of light and shade on the faces and the drawing of the eyes, 
nose, mouth, and chin. They are almost identical. 


Portrait or Younc Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.149, B.173. 
Said to be a portrait of Rembrandt, but it is merely a Flinck 


86 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
HOLFORD 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
MORGAN 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
DAVIS 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
BUCKINGHAM 
PALACE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


model. Open coat, red and purple cap, long hair, with the wide eyes, 
the shadow, the type, the drawing of Flinck. 


SASKIA AT Her Tomer. 
Signed Rem. 

Reproduced herein and needing no argument for its Flinck origin. 
The same or a similar portrait now in Davis Collection, London. 


SUSANNA AT BatTH 
Signed Rembrandt 1637, K.K.180, B.193.* 

Compare the background landscape with that in the Berlin Flinck 
of the Sending Away of Hagar. Notice the mountain sides at right, 
with the distant white buildings and the light upon them in both pic- 
tures. Susanna is a Flinck type, and the same model as the Saskia as 
Flora, or the Artemisia at Madrid, though younger and slighter in 
form. Ten years after this picture was painted, Eeckhout probably 
painted the Berlin Susanna, following this Flinck picture in pose and 
composition. But the rather refined, girlish type with Flinck became 
coarse and vulgarized with Eeckhout. 


PortrRAItT OF Boy 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.139, B.178. 


It is probably by some follower or pupil of Flinck, using Flinck’s 
type, and exaggerating his work by spotty high lights. 


Portrait oF YounNG MAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1644, K.K.274, B.259. 


It is the same sitter as in the Glasgow picture, and the picture is 
done in the same way. 


PorTRAIT OF A PAINTER 
Not signed, K.K.346, B.364. 

Quite in the Flinck vein. With the scrap of curtain at right, which 
he often used and probably picked up from Van Dyck. Assignment 
tentative. 


Saskia AT Her Tomer 
K.K.204, B.159. 


It follows the Havemeyer Portrait of a Young Woman. The same 
or a similar portrait shown at The Hague Museum in 1895. 


LaDy WITH Fan 
Signed Rembrandt 1641, K.K.261, B.284. 

Compare with the Flinck in the Wallace Collection and the Berlin 
Gallery Portrait.of a Young Woman by Flinck. Note the shadowed 
hand; also the general manner, pose, and bearing. 


CHRIST AS THE GARDENER 
Signed Rembrandt 1638, K.K.185. 


It is Flinck’s landscape, with a mountain wall at right and distant 
valley at left. The types are also Flinck’s. The woman crouching on 
the steps shows in Flinck’s Appearance to the Shepherds in the Louvre. 
A copy of this picture is in The Hague Museum, and given to Flinck. 
It is possibly a Flinck shop copy of this Buckingham Palace picture. 


63. FLINCK: PORTRAIT OF GIRL ¢ 64, FLINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): SASKIA AS FLORA 


Brunswick Museum Hermitage, Petrograd 


65. FLINCK: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG GIRL 


Kaiba’ Hates 66. FLINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): SASKIA AT 


HER TOILET 
The Hague Museum 


Pirate XVII 


67. FLINCK: PORTRAIT OF OFFICER 68. FLINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF 
Hermitage, Petrograd JEWISH BOY 
Hermitage, Petrograd 


69, FLINCK: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 70. FLINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): YOUNG MAN 
The Hague Portrait Exhibition, 1903 WITH STICK 


Sedelmeyer Galleries, Paris 


Puate XVIII 


', 


LONDON: 


WESTMINSTER 


COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
BUCCLEUCH 
COLLECTION 


MADRID: 
PRADO 


NEW YORK: 
HAVEMEYER 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
SEDELMEYER 
GALLERIES 


PARIS: 
ROTHSCHILD 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
SCHLOSS 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 87 


Man witaH Fatcon 
Signed Rembrandt 1643, K.K.268, B.268. 


Showing influence of Venetian portraiture. Assignment tentative. 


WomMAN wiTtH Fan 
Signed Rembrandt 1643, K.K.269, B.269. 

It follows the Berlin, Havemeyer, Buckingham Palace portraits of 
women by Flinck, and is more convincingly his work than its companion 
piece, the Man with Falcon. Assignment tentative. 


SASKIA AS FLora 
Signed Rembrandt 1632, K.K.135, B.186. 

It follows the Hermitage Flora, is in the same vein, and by the same 
hand. The model was one used in the Rembrandt studio, whether 
Rembrandt’s sister or wife is unimportant. Lievens produced pictures 
in which she appears. 


QUEEN ARTEMISIA 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.156, B.191. 

Attributed also to Bol. It is by Flinck, as a comparison of the 
type, drawing, and folds of drapery with the Saskia as Flora (in the 
Hermitage) will disclose. Note the curl of the little finger in both 
pictures. Compare it also with The Hague Susanna for type. 


Portrait or Youna WomMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1643, K.K.271, B.267. 

To be compared with the Flinck Portrait of a Young Woman in 
the Wallace Collection, London, for analogies and likenesses in draw- 
ing, pose, type; also with the Portrait of a Woman at the Berlin Museum, 
The Hague, 1903 (Sedelmeyer), Flinck, and the Buckingham Palace 
Portrait of a Woman by Flinck (given to Rembrandt). Assignment 
tentative. 


Portrait OF MAn 
Signed 1643, K.K.271, B.266. 

Probably companion piece to the Young Woman in the Havemeyer 
Collection. It follows The Hague 1903 (Sedelmeyer) Flinck, also the 
Flinck (given to Rembrandt) Portrait of a Man at Glasgow. Assign- 
ment tentative. 


Youne MAN wiITH STICK 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp., 119. 


Reproduced herein. The likeness to the Saskia at Her Toilet in 
the Davis Collection, London, is obvious. 


PorTRAIT OF A Boy 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.139, B.177. 

Probably by a pupil or follower of Flinck, using Flinck’s model and 
methods. Possibly a Flinck workshop picture. 


FLORA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.136, B,.190. 

Probably by the same hand as the Buccleuch and the Hermitage 
pictures. 


88 


PARIS: 
KRAMER 
COLLECTION 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


PETROGRAD: 
YUSSUPOFF 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
HARRACH 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
LANCKORON- 
SKI 
COLLECTION 


WELBECK 
ABBEY: 
PORTLAND 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


SASKIA AS FLORA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.138. 

It should be compared with the signed Flinck at Brunswick, 
especially for the hand on the stick, the flowers, the dress. 


PortRAIT OF JEwisH Boy 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.140, B.179. 

Compare with the Hermitage Saskia for type, drawing, and the 
painting of scarf about the neck. (Notice the use and the fold of the 
neck-cloths in the Flincks reproduced herein.) Also with the Bruns- 
wick Flinck Portrait of a Young Girl and the Hermitage Portrait of 
an Officer by Flinck. 


SASKIA AS FLORA 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.137, B.189. 

Compare it closely with the signed Flinck of a Young Girl as Shep- 
herdess, in the Brunswick Museum. It is not only the same model, 
but the sleeve, the loops, the hands, the flowers, the hair, the drawing 
of the face all point to the same hand in both pictures. Flowers in 
hair blue, red, and white. Blue dress, with overdress of blue and red. 
Flowers on staff green, blue, and white. They are all Flinck colors. 


“Decoratively it is excellent. The pale green and gray color holds together 
well and the tone of it is right enough. The picture has some charm, but it is 
too light in spirit, in color, in shadows, in handling for Rembrandt. ... The 
use of flowers in the hair suggests a following of Lastman.”—New Guides to 
Old Masters, Petrograd. 


Portrait oF A Boy 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.141, B.180. 

Probably a Flinck workshop picture, following the Portrait of a 
Jewish Boy at the Hermitage. 


Youne Woman IN BLUE 
Signed Rembrandt 1642. 


It is the same model and follows the Saskia as Flora, in the Kramer 
Collection, Paris (K.K.138). 


JEWISH BRIDE 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.258, B.299. 

With hands that match the Saskia as Flora pictures, and quite in 
the spirit of Flinck. Assignment tentative. 


PortTRAIT OF A Boy 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.141, B.181. 

Probably a Flinck workshop picture, following the Portrait of a 
Jewish Boy at Petrograd. 


FURNERIUS, ABRAHAM 
1628 


A pupil of Rembrandt, contemporary with Hoogstraten and Carel 


Fabritius. 


It seems that he was a landscape painter, but apparently none 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 89 


of his pictures remain under his name at the present day. Even the two 
or three drawings given to him are doubtful. 


GAEL, ADRIAEN 
1618 ?-1665 


Gael is said to have been a pupil of Rembrandt, and is so listed by 
Doctor Hofstede de Groot. His birth and death can only be guessed at, 
and his pictures are not known at the present time. They are possibly 
confused with other pictures by painters of his kin and name. 


GELDER, AERT DE 
1645-1727 


Aert de Gelder was a pupil of Hoogstraten, and probably about 1660 a 
pupil of Rembrandt. He came into the Rembrandt studio late and learned 
the later, broader manner of the shop, which he often exaggerated by free 
and sometimes ineffectual brushwork. At first he seemed to produce 
careful, rather smooth pictures, with very accurate drawing, but he grew 
careless or impatient and did many things of a sketchy nature. These 
latter have the verve and dash of the sketch, but they are wanting in draw- 
ing and are sometimes false in values. He essayed the historical picture, 
with many figures, but he had difficulty in keeping his figures in their 
proper planes, and his lighting bothered him. Moreover, he occasionally 
crowded too many figures into his canvases, with architecture and studio 
properties, such as armor, Oriental costumes, curtains, and draperies. His 
composition is a little huddled and uncertain, and his figures are far from 
select, often appearing quaint or perhaps grotesque. His portraits were 
more carefully done and with a display of ornament in dress that occa- 
sionally produced magnificent color. At his best his portraiture was of a 
quality that made its appropriation to Rembrandt quite possible. 

He was perhaps more of a colorist than any other of the Rembrandt 
School, and that was really his dominant quality. His pictures were 
usually thought out as color schemes, and the decorative sense was upper- 
most with him. This is apparent not only in his palette of pinkish-reds, 
geranium-reds, and silver-grays, but in his display of ornamental silks, 
fringes, veils, jewelry, head-dresses. He is easily distinguished from the 
other Rembrandt followers by his mannerisms, but he is nevertheless a 
painter of accomplishment and of variety. He does not repeat himself 
like Bol or Flinck. Photographs give little idea of his art. Flinck, when 
put together in photographs, becomes obvious in his types or models, but 


90 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


De Gelder is to be traced less by his types than by his color and his 
handling, of which the photograph gives little or no hint. This should be 
borne in mind by the student who studies De Gelder in reproductions. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


ASCHAFFEN- 
BURG: 
MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


BUDAPEST: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY AERT DE GELDER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Kine Davin 


JOHANN VAN DER Burcu 
Signed. 


CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH VAN BLYENBURGH 
Signed. 


Curist TAKEN IN GETHSEMANE 
Signed.* 


Curist BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM 
Signed.* 

The last two pictures belong to the Passion Series, most of which is 
at Aschaffenburg. They are hardly characteristic De Gelders—not 
pictures to be used as a criterion of his general style. 


Ercut PicTtuRES OF THE PASSION 

Two of these Passion pictures are now at Amsterdam. There were 
twenty-two in the original series, according to Houbraken. In 1922 
there were six in the Aschaffenburg Museum. They are rather dark 
in tone, with deep, almost monotonous color. The series is remarkable 
for imagination and novelty of presentation rather than for form and 
color. As noted above, the pictures of the series are hardly character- 
istic De Gelders. 


Hoty Famity 
Signed. 
A carelessly drawn work, inferior as a De Gelder. 


Rut anp Boaz 

With a warm, light-struck landscape that may suggest a possible 
painter for some of the so-called Rembrandt landscapes. Sketchily and 
broadly done for its size. 


Lor anp His DAUGHTER 

A sketchy, rather careless, but genuine enough De Gelder, with 
cross-hatching in the drapery, rather small, spotty high lights, and a 
reddish tone. 


EstHER AND Morpecal 
Signed 1685.* 

“An excellent De Gelder, better drawn and composed than usual, and with 
fine color. The handling is facile and rather more sure than in other examples of 
this painter, though of the same general character. One of the best De Gelders 


71. DE GELDER: THE JEWISH BRIDE 
Old Pinacothek, Munich 


72. DE GELDER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
OF WOMAN 
Sedelmeyer Galleries, Paris 


73. DE GELDER: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 74, DE GELDER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna OF WOMAN 


Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna 


Puate XIX 


La 
NAefirssepee 
ome 


> 


75. DE GELDER: PORTRAIT OF VAN BEVEREN 76. DE GELDER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Hardenbroek Collection, The Hague OF SASKIA 


Byers Collection, Pittsburgh 


nt ea 


77. DE GELDER: PORTRAIT OF PAINTER 78. DE GELDER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): MAN 
Hermitage, Petrograd WITH GOLDEN HELMET 


Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


PLATE XX 


COPENHAGEN : 
MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


DORDRECHT: 
MUSEUM 


FRANKFORT: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 

HAARLEM: 
FRANS HALS 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 91 


in gallery possession. The color is a little hot. What richness in the woman’s 
costume! This is the hand that did the Prodigal Son, assigned to Rembrandt 
at the Hermitage.”—New Guides to Old Masters, Budapest, p. 130. 


ORIENTAL PRINCE 
Signed 1685. 

Done with great care and certainty, quite right in drawing, charm- 
ing in color, and brushed swiftly, freely, but surely. It is ornate in 
turban with pearls, red girdle, and spotted high lights. One of the best 
of De Gelders. 


Morpecar AND ESTHER 

Signed. 

A typical De Gelder in types, costumes, color, and handling. The 
composition slips away at left to the crouching figure of the Jew. The 
woman at back is false in value. She wears a greenish-yellow dress. 


CHRIST SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE 
Signed 1671, Hanf.* 


Reddish in underbasing, with silvery high lights on man in armor 
standing on platform at right. 


“Fair in color but rambling in the composition. It lacks in concentration, 
the light is scattered and the drawing is weak.’’—New Guides to Old Masters, 
Dresden, p. 161. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
(No. 21.) Signed 1690. 

Holding a sculptor’s chisel in hand, with marble head at left. Freely 
and loosely painted with pronounced high lights. 


Woman IN Lisperty Cap 

With staff in right hand, a bright green over-robe, and dragged high 
lights. Has all the verve of a sketch, easily handled, and then hatched 
through the wet paint to produce textural effect. De Gelder here 
shows his wonderful versatility in color arrangement. 


PAINTER IN His WorkKsHOP 
Signed 1685. 


Man IN TURBAN, WITH FRUIT _ 
Loaned by an Austrian collector during the summer of 1922. 


Dark ground, oranges and lemons on silver platter, red table-cloth. 
Figure at right, attendant at left. Dark in tone, with smeared face, 
like the Man with Golden Helmet in Berlin. Scarf dragged flat, high 
lights on turban. A good if rather dark De Gelder. 


JUDAH AND TAMAR 
Signed. 
A color scheme of reds and terra-cottas. 


Toe TEMPLE* 


PortTRAIT OF Man 
(No. 757, added in 1918.) 


92 


THE HAGUE: 
HARDENBROEK 
COLLECTION 


LEYDEN: 
MUSEUM 
(LOANED IN 
1922) 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


PRAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 


ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN — 
GALLERY 


VIENNA: 
ACADEMY 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PORTRAIT 
Shown at The Hague Exhibition 1903. 


PORTRAIT OF THE PAINTER 


In brown, with red flesh and red underbasing in coat. 
handled. 


Very easily 
Tue JewisH BripE 
Signed 1684.* Reproduced in Catalogue. ° 

Loaded high lights, flat painting in half-tones, scratched (for textural 
effects) in the veil and head-dress. A representative De Gelder. 


A DutcH ADMIRAL 
Attributed. 


PAINTER’S PORTRAIT 
Signed.* 

“This portrait, and also No. 1831, give little or no hint of Aert de Gelder. 
The latter is perhaps nearer to him than the former, but neither of them is 
characteristic or even probable. The Prodigal Son (No. 797) in this Gallery is 
assigned to Rembrandt, but it is by Aert de Gelder. Probably the Rembrandt 
here of Pallas Athena (No. 809) is also by De Gelder. Either of the two so- 
called Rembrandts is nearer De Gelder than these attributed portraits.” —New 
Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. 31. 


VERTUMNUS AND PoMONA 
Falsely signed Rembrandt 1649. Now given to De Gelder. 


AGONY IN GARDEN 
It agrees with the Aschaffenburg Agony in the Garden in the Pas- 
sion Series, for which it may have been the original sketch. 


ABRAHAM AND ANGELS 

A palpable De Gelder and so catalogued to-day, notwithstanding 
the false signature of Rembrandt upon it. Abraham in gold-colored 
cape, red head-dress, also a red dress at left. Angel in greenish-white, 
shot with mauve. Scratched for textural effects. A color study. 


Portrait oF YounGc Man 
Signed 1667. 


It is an excellent portrait, not too good for De Gelder, but a little 
aside from his usual style. It is probably an early example. 


JUDAH AND TAMAR 
A fine late example of De Gelder, with good color effect. 


PICTURES BY AERT DE GELDER 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


Man with GoLDEN HELMET 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.335, B.356. 

The first clew in this picture is the pinkish-red note in the feathers 
of the helmet, repeated in the ear tab and farther down on the sleeve. 


BUCHAREST: 
KING’S 
COLLECTION 


GLASGOW: 
CORPORATION 
GALLERY 


MOSCOW: 
RUMIANTZOFF 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 93 


This is a color peculiar to Aert de Gelder. The next clew is that mak- 
ing much of head-gear is peculiar to De Gelder, and that he brings out 
the high lights prominently by dots and dabs that are forced and fre- 
quently false in value. He also (as a third clew) does things carefully 
in the high lights and freely elsewhere. Notice how the light dances 
on the helmet and is measurably exact, whereas the feathers on the 
coat are merely loosely suggested. That is a half-impressionistic fea- 
ture of De Gelder. He could do things exactly when he wished, as the 
Oriental Prince at Copenhagen will show; and then at a later time he 
could be very slovenly in his drawing. He was also disposed to over- 
load his high lights, which is marked in this Golden Helmet picture. 
The picture is now yellow with varnish, but were it cleaned the white 
high lights would probably appear in very pronounced whites. His 
color was much mixed and often lacking in clarity. He inclined to 
warm tones of pinkish red, with warm greens and yellows. He was a 
success as a colorist. See in this gallery the small De Gelder, Ruth 
and Boaz, No. 806A. 

The Man with the Golden Helmet is a masterpiece that suggests 
Rembrandt in not the smallest way. The so-called Rembrandt’s 
brother that authorities see in the sitter is a mere man of straw. He 
was a model used by Bol and others. De Gelder may have taken the 
face from some picture hanging in the Rembrandt shop. The face was 
as nothing to him. He was painting the helmet—making a scheme of 
light and color. This picture is very dark and smeared on the face— 
another De Gelder peculiarity shown in many of his pictures, noticeably 
in one at the Hals Museum, Haarlem, in the summer of 1922. It has 
many small analogies with De Gelder’s other pictures—analogies of 
handling, drawing, coloring. 


Morprcal AND ESTHER 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.469, B.530. 

The Esther follows the type in the Moscow picture listed hereafter. 
The placing of the figures—the one in the background, out of value—is 
quite in keeping with De Gelder’s method of composition. The back- 
ground head in a helmet is the same model that appears in the Metro- 
politan Museum (N. Y.) picture of a Dutch Admiral, here listed with 
De Gelder’s works as signed or otherwise authenticated. 


Man 1n ARMOR 
Signed Rembrandt 165-, K.K.375, B.418. 

The helmet is elaborate in high lights and pitched too high in key. 
Also the high lights on the steel breastplate. Cloak dull red. An 
architectural niche in background. Face grimed in shadow, after the 
manner of Man in Golden Helmet at Berlin. Freely and carelessly 
brushed. Everything about it indicates a mediocre Aert de Gelder, 
for which the Petrograd Minerva may have been only a first trial, car- 
ried no farther than a sketch, and the Man in Golden Helmet at Berlin 
the final statement. 


AHASUERUS AND HAMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1660, K.K.453, B.411. 

The picture shows Aert de Gelder’s love of ornamentation, his use 
of high lights, his careless brush methods, and his loose drawing. It is 
quite in his spirit and manner. 


94 


PARIS: 
SEDELMEYER 
GALLERIES 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Portrait oF WoMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1635, K.K.Supp. 34. 


It is like the Guttman Vienna picture, except that the latter does 
not show the book. Scratched in the wet paint to produce textural 
effects. 


HaMAN IN DISGRACE 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.469, B.53%.* 


It follows the Bucharest Mordecai and Esther in composition, draw- 
ing, and handling, with the same model of the old man in both pictures. 
De Gelder seems to have planned some series founded on Esther and 
carried it out in several pictures. That would be in keeping with his 
Passion Series, eight pictures of which still remain in Amsterdam and 
Aschaffenburg. 


Patuas ATHENA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.375, B.419.* 


Evidently an incomplete study, probably done at the same time as 
the Pallas of the Glasgow Corporation Gallery, but not so carefully 
done. It shows the loose, sketchy handling often employed by Aert 
de Gelder. 


“This Pallas Athena has every appearance of being a poor start, something 
left unfinished, by Aert de Gelder. It is a muddy performance.”—New Guides 
to Old Masters, Petrograd, p.72. 


THe PRopDIGAL SON 
Signed R.v.Ryn, K.K.471, B.533, Hanf. 


ee 


. . . Are we to believe this picture a Rembrandt because it is bad and has, 
in addition, ‘the unusual and questionable signature R.v.Ryn’? What about 
Aert de Gelder as a possible painter of the picture? It fits him exactly as it 
misfits Rembrandt wholly and completely. The composition with one group 
falsely prominent in light and another group at the back falsely inconspicuous 
in the shadow, is a marked mannerism of Aert de Gelder. Whenever he used 
two or more figures in different planes they almost always failed to hold together 
because untrue in their values. Again, the loose, rambling drawing and the 
free but ineffectual handling are to be seen in almost all of his work. What 
would not Rembrandt have made of the Prodigal’s feet, the father’s hands, the 
scheme of light, the mystery of shadow. Gelder has slurred them all with his 
want of skill, his inability to cope with a picture of this size. For this poor 
work notice merely one feature—the arch of the door with the vine at back 
and the badly relieved figure near it. The silver-gray color with terra-cottas 
and reds is again a color-mannerism of Gelder. The silver-grays at the wrists 
and elbows of the father are positively his, and the terra-cottas are to be found 
everywhere in his pictures. There is no touch of Rembrandt here. Moreover, 
the admiration of those who think it a Rembrandt is somewhat ill bestowed. 
It is not a great picture—not even for Aert de Gelder. As for the possibility of 
its being by Rembrandt, think of it in connection with the Night Watch, or the 
Syndics, or the Lesson in Anatomy, and immediately the possibility vanishes.” 
—New Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. '74. 


I need add nothing to that note made ten years ago. 


PITTSBURGH: 
BYERS 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


VIENNA: 
GUTTMAN 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 95 


Peter’s DENIAL 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K. 383, B.405, Hanf. 


“*. , . Compare this Peter’s Denial with the Prodigal Son (No. 797) across 
the room, and can you not see in the rambling drawing, the color scheme, the 
figures at the back, the same hand—the hand of Aert de Gelder. . . .”—New 
Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. 75. 


PoRTRAIT OF SASKIA 
Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.132, B.156. 


Compare with the Munich and Budapest pictures by De Gelder for 
the general presentation and mood of the painter. Also for the head- 
dress, the lines of the falling stuff, the drawing of the eyes, nose, mouth, 
and face contours. Study it also for the effect of light, especially with 
the Budapest picture. It is a fine portrait, done in the spirit of De 
Gelder, as well as in his manner, and probably by him, though there is 
a slight suggestion of Flinck about it. 


PortTrRAIT OF LADY 
Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.213, B.184. 


By the same hand that did the Pittsburgh Saskia, and with the 
same effect of the feather in hair and ornamental dressing. Compare 
the drawings of the mouths, or the ovals of the faces, or the doing of 
the hair or the effect of lighting. Reddish tone in dress and flesh, much 
lace, chain, and bodice work, with high lights dotted and dragged. A 
fine portrait given with much life and spirit. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.212, B.183. 


Companion piece to the Liechtenstein portrait given above and 
done in the same manner and spirit. 


REMBRANDT’S SISTER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.61. 


It is neither by Rembrandt nor of Rembrandt’s sister, but a por- 
trait by Aert de Gelder, following the Liechtenstein Portrait of Lady. 
Compare the drawing of the mouths and the nostrils, also the ovals of 
the faces. The woman is the same model that appears in the Munich 
Aert de Gelder called the Jewish Bride. Notice the dragging of lights 
on the head-dress and scarf. It is a mannerism of De Gelder’s which 
appears strongly in his figure compositions. This portrait has the 
same spirit of light-heartedness or good-nature or content that runs 
through all this painter’s portraits. Another version of this picture 
with Sedelmeyer, Paris (K.K.Supp.34), in which the high lights are 
scratched in the wet paint to produce textural effect—a habit of De 
Gelder’s well shown in his Jewish Bride picture at Munich. A greenish 
note in the throat and head-dress. 


Again I submit that if the De Gelders and Rembrandt-De Gelders of 
this list be put together in photographs they will establish not only a con- 
sistent personality, but one that is different from every other in the 
Rembrandt School. If the pictures themselves could be brought together, 
they would tell an even more positive story in their color, their surface, 


96 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


and their brushwork, of coming directly from the hand of Aert de Gelder. 
He was a painter of fine frenzies, and saw things in dreams of splendor, but 
he blundered often in his realization. The pictures reveal just that type 
of painter. That his pictures should be handed over to Rembrandt sug- 
gests that many people have confused mere blundering with breadth of 
handling. Breadth perhaps requires greater accuracy than minuteness, 
and Aert de Gelder frequently attained it. But not always. 


GHERWEN, OR GERWEN, RENIER 
— ?-1662? 

A pupil of Rembrandt whose life and art are in the shadow. He lived 
at The Hague about 1659 and one or two pictures in existence are signed 
by him. 

PICTURES BY GHERWEN 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


MUNICH: ABRAHAM’S OFFERING 
OLD Signed. 
PINACOTHEK 


Abraham has a brown coat with red sleeves. There is an angel at 
back, with dark wings and in a dark cloud. Dark gray and brown tone, 
with shadows rather deep. Both the sentiment and the drawing are a 
little flimsy. Hands and fingers rather formal. Types not seen else- 
where. Canvas in poor condition. 


VIENNA: PortTrRAIT OF YounG MAn 
IMPERIAL Signed. 
GALLERY The signature was underneath the false signature of Rembrandt. 


Three-quarters length of young man in red hat, white plume, steel 
gorget. Aristocratic in pose and air, with hand on hip like a Van 
Dyck. Fairly well done, but not remarkable in either drawing or 
handling. 


GLADBEECK, JAN VAN 
1634 ?-1686? 
A painter of the Rembrandt School who flourished about 1653, but I 


can find no trace of his pictures. They have completely disappeared or 
been appropriated to some one with a greater name. 


GRIFFIER, JAN 
1656 ?-1718 
A landscape painter, said by Walpole to have been the pupil of several 


masters, including Roghman, who was a Rembrandt pupil, and Rembrandt 
himself. He lived much in London and painted a good many pictures 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 97 


that were sold after his death. There are two signed landscapes by him 
at Schwerin, showing mountain-valley scenes, with villages, castles, towers, 
churches, small figures, and trees. They are somewhat like the land- 
scapes of Saftleven, a little like Moucheron, and sometimes suggestive of 
Velvet Breughel. They are neither very important nor very good, and 
have no resemblance to the so-called Rembrandt landscapes. The Dresden 
examples of him are similar in style. He probably received the Rembrandt 
tradition at second hand, if at all. 


PICTURES BY GRIFFIER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: River View 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed. 

BRUNSWICK: WINTER LANDSCAPE 
MUSEUM Signed. 


Two examples. They are neither of them of much merit. 


DRESDEN: SEVENTEEN LANDSCAPES 
GALLERY Signed. 
Other landscapes by Griffier at Paris, Petrograd, Schleissheim, Olden- 
burg, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Turin, Vienna. 


HEERSCHOP, HENDRIK 
1620 ?-1672 


Heerschop was at first a pupil of Heda and later, probably about 1642 
and after, with Rembrandt. Kramm and Immerzeel make short mention 
of him. Only a few facts of his birth and death have come down to us. 
Half a dozen pictures are still left him. He, like many of the Dutch 
painters, was also an engraver. 


PICTURES BY HEERSCHOP 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: ERECHTHEUS AND DAUGHTERS OF CECROPS 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed. 


REBECCA AND SERVANT OF ABRAHAM 
Signed 1656. 


BERLIN: Moorish KIneG 


KAISER- f s 
FRIEDRICH Signed 1654. 


MUSEUM It is too hard and lacks atmosphere and inset. 


98 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


CASSEL: THe Carp PLAYERS 
GALLERY Signed. 
Smoother than Brouwer, but not unlike him. A very good picture. 
DRESDEN: THE ALCHEMIST 
GALLERY Signed. 
An excellent picture, well and easily painted. 
PETROGRAD: MorHER AND CHILD 
HERMITAGE “The picture is rambling in drawing but very good in color. The figure is 


centralized in light, has loaded high lights and dark surroundings.’”—New 
Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. 37. 


SCHWERIN: A PAINTER OF ARCHITECTURE 
GALLERY Signed 1672. 


HOOGSTRATEN, SAMUEL VAN 
1627-1678 


This painter was, at first, a pupil of his father, and about 1642 a pupil 
of Rembrandt. He travelled much, going to Vienna, where he worked for 
the Emperor and was honored. He afterward went to Italy and to England. 
He returned to Holland, where he held the important office of Director of 
the Mint, and became a person of authority in art because of his writings. 
He was a poet and dramatic writer, but he lives to-day largely because of 
his writings about Rembrandt, for whom he had a great admiration. The 
book (An Introduction to the High School of Art) was put forth in 1678. 
Hoogstraten had a number of pupils, including Aert de Gelder, Schalken, 
and Cornelius Vermeulen. His style at first followed that of Rembrandt, 
but he later took up with a smaller manner, somewhat like that of Pieter de 
Hooch, but frailer, paler, and weaker, after the manner of the later Verkolje. 
Few of his pictures have passed as Rembrandts, though there may be some 
still passing as De Hoochs. 


PICTURES BY HOOGSTRATEN 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: MAatTTHEUS VAN DEN BROUCKE 
RYKS MUSEUM  Jnitialed.* 

“A pretentious and exaggerated portrait, better in the gold of the chains, 
sword, and stick than any other part of it. The face is large and weak, the 
color without charm, the handling thin and rather commonplace.’’—New Guides 
to Old Masters, Amsterdam, p. 32. 


Tue Sick Lapy 
Initialed, reproduced in Catalogue. 

“For all her red eyes, the lady sits up and poses a bit for her picture. She 
is more elegant than Steen’s Sick Lady (No. 2246), but not nearly so real. 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
IMPERIAL 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 99 


Although handsome in color and easily handled, the dress is too high in light 
and the picture is hard and airless.”—New Guides to Old Masters, Amsterdam, 
p. 32. 


Youne Lapy In Court YARD 
Initialed, Hanf. 


PortTRAIT GROUP 
In the early manner of Hoogstraten, if it is to be given to him at all. 


Man at Window 
Initialed, 1653. 


A poor affair, not worthy of Hoogstraten. 


Portrait oF YounG Man 

In a warm tone, with a reddish under-jacket, white collar, and yel- 
low hair. Smoothly done with a well-loaded brush. An excellent 
portrait. 


CHAPTER X 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 
(CONTINUED) * 


HORST, GERRIT WILLEMZ 
1612 ?-1652 


ORST was one of the most interesting of the Rembrandt followers, 
judging merely from his pictures. There is as little known about 
him as others of his kind, but it is thought he was a pupil of Antony 
Hendricksz, and later came under the Rembrandt influence. His pictures 
say he was a painter of historical and biblical subjects, with a dramatic 
quality above and beyond any of the school. Salomon Koninck was a bet- 
ter and a more versatile painter, but hardly had the dramatic instinct of 
Horst. Almost all of his best pictures have been given to Rembrandt, 
but fortunately two or three still exist under his own name and point the 
way to some of those under the Rembrandt name—notably the celebrated 
Danaé, at the Hermitage, which is apparently a Horst and not a Rem- 
brandt. Horst, like many another painter, had a way of not only repeat- 
ing his types and his action, but also his composition. The Danaé is merely 
one of three or four pictures put together in the same way and with similar 
effect. 

Horst was a good draughtsman and dealt with rather select types, but 
was inclined at times to be theatrical in composition and flashy in deco- 
rative effects. He was fond of glitter and glare. The Danaé is an example 
of this. His facility in doing still-life is well shown in his still-life picture 
in the Berlin Museum—a remarkable piece of color, as well as of handling. 
He continually puts in his pictures shields, helmets, gildings, for effects of 
high light. It often produces a spotty effect. His color was not always so 
effective as in the Berlin still-life. It is more often too reddish and hot, or 
too cool with blues. His pigment was laid on in no great body. In fact, 
he painted with a moderately loaded brush and did no thumbing or knead- 
ing upon the canvas. If the date of his birth be given about 1612, then he 
was probably in the Rembrandt shop about 1630, and learned the earlier and 
thinner method then taught in the shop. The Danaé (signed 1636) may 


have been done while he was in the shop and under Rembrandt’s influence. 
100 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


DUBLIN: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


ENGLAND: 
WAUCHOPE 
COLLECTION 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 101 


PICTURES BY HORST 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


MAGNANIMITY OF SCIPIO 
Signed. Reproduced in ‘‘ Burlington Magazine,” vol. XX, p. 259. 

Rather hot in color, like other Horsts. Old man kneeling is in dull 
red, aud that note runs through the picture. Probably underbased in 
red, which has worked through to the surface. A very large picture, 
well drawn and held together but not loaded on the surface. Smoothly 
but freely brushed. Similar in composition to the Judas Returning the 
Silver at The Hague, referred to hereafter. 


STrLL Lire 
Signed 1651. Reproduced in,“ Burlington Magazine,” vol. XX, p. 259. 

This is a color experiment of Horst’s. The blue of the table-cover 
is balanced by the red and yellow of the fruit and the red of the gold 


chalice. It is an excellent still-life, freely but flatly done, and without 
loaded high lights. 


Isaac Biesstina JAcoB 
Formerly attributed to Lievens. 

This has the composition of the Danaé at Petrograd. Horst repeated 
it several times. The hand of Isaac outstretched again repeats that of 
the Danaé. It is hot in color, like the Scipio, but well drawn and easily 
painted. 


Davip’s CHARGE TO SOLOMON 
Reproduced in “‘ Burlington Magazine,” vol. XX, p. 262. 

Formerly ascribed to Bol, but rightly identified by Sir Walter Arm- 
strong as a Horst. See his article in the Burlington, as above. 


Dovus_LEe PortTRAIT 
Reproduced in “‘ Burlington Magazine,” vol. XX, p. 250. 


Sir Walter Armstrong, in the magazine article cited above, has 
rightly identified this picture as a Horst. The type and pose of the 
young woman, the hands, the action, the feeling are unmistakably 
Horst’s. They are repeated in the other pictures of this group. 


PICTURES BY HORST 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


SAMSON THREATENING His FatHer-1n-LAw 
Signed Rembrandt 163?, K.K.171, B.210, Hanf.* 


The same model as in the Paris Rothschild picture, only done at an 
earlier date. The picture is much better and less coarse than the 
Frankfort Samson, though by no means a great picture. It has the 
dramatic quality seen in all Horst’s works. The gray-blue envelope 
here appears in the Petrograd Danaé, but the flesh of the hands and 
face has the warmth, the heat, of the Berlin Scipio or the Isaac. Com- 
pare the head of the Isaac (in the Berlin Museum) with that of the 
father-in-law in the Samson, especially for the way the high lights are 
placed on the noses. Also compare the father-in-law’s left hand with 


102 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


DULWICH: 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


the right hand of Isaac—especially in the last three fingers. Notice 
also that the breaks in the sleeve of the Samson are practically the 
same as those in the woman’s sleeve in the Isaac. The handling is simi- 
lar in both works. The ring in the wall at back in this picture is 
repeated in the small Samson and Delilah in this Berlin Gallery, which 
also belongs to Horst and is listed below. 


SAMSON AND DELILAH 
Signed R.H.L. 1628, K.K.7, B.6.* 

It formerly passed as a Lievens; but it is an early Horst, done in the 
manner of the Samson Threatening His Father-in-Law. It has the 
same dramatic quality, has the Horst types, drawing of curtains, paint- 
ing of still-life. Compare the doing of the robes in the two pictures 
and the manner of distributing the light upon these silks. The hands 
again are the Horst hands and even the ring in the door at back is 
repeated in both pictures. But this is the earlier picture, and a little 
smoother in consequence. Also the color scheme is not hot, as in later 
works. Note the hand and face of the chief Philistine for the analogy 
in the father-in-law of Samson. 


Raper OF PROSERPINA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.109, B.70, Hanf.* 

This picture was formerly ascribed to Jan Van Vliet, and Houbraken 
thought it by Terlee. It is perhaps an early example of Horst, done 
in a small, rather thin and pretty manner. The dramatic quality of it 
is obvious, the pyramid form of composition is one that Horst fancied 
and varied several times, his love of still life (notably in the brass lion’s 
head) is as apparent as in the Danaé, the spotting and dotting of light 
on robe and chain, and his blue-green envelope are again characteristic. 
The type of Pluto, with whom Proserpina is struggling, is the same model 
as the Esau in the Belton House picture (K.K.172), and the Proserpina 
is the type of the Liechtenstein Bathsheba (K.K.107). That is perhaps 
not mere coincidence. But it may be admitted that there is room for 
doubt about this picture. I list it tentatively. 


Samson’s WEDDING 
Signed Rembrandt 1638, K.K.221, B.222. 

Horst seems to have done a Samson cycle, probably because the 
subject was dramatic and appealed to him. Even in this rather quiet 
wedding feast he has chosen the dramatic moment. The types appear 
in Horst’s other pictures, also the curtains, the costumes, and the 
tankard at right. The head in a cap directly above the tankard is 
that of the old woman at the back in the Danaé picture at Petrograd. 
The same blues here as elsewhere in the early Horsts. A fairly good 
picture, though it wanders and falls out at the left. 


Isaac BLEssInG JACOB 
(No. 214.) Attributed to Jan Victors. 

It has the same tone of red as in the Berlin Isaac picture by Horst. 
It is now hot from underbasing in red and has been much restored. 
The hand of Isaac, though hurt, is still the peculiar outstretched hand 
of Horst, as shown in many pictures. It is the familiar bed scene, 
with curtains at back and an attendant there, as in his other pictures. 
Jacob has the quiver and arrows, as in the Belton House picture. The 


79. HORST: MAGNANIMITY OF SCIPIO 80. HORST (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): JUDAS AND THE 
, F PIECES OF SILVER 


Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


Preyer Gallery, The Hague 


81. HORST: DAVID’S CHARGE TO SOLOMON 


National Gallery, Dublin 


82. HORST (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): DANAE 
Hermitage, Petrograd 


Puate XXI 


83. HORST: ISAAC BLESSING JACOB 


Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin Ty bd. : 
84. HORST (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): BLINDING OF 


SAMSON 
Staedel Institute, Frankfort 


85. HORST: DOUBLE PORTRAIT 
Wauchope Collection, Niddrie House, England 


86. HORST (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): BATHSHEBA 


Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna 


Piuate XXII 


ENGLAND: 
BELTON HOUSE 
COLLECTION 


FRANKFORT >: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 


GLASGOW: 
CORPORATION 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
PREYER 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 103 


composition, drawing, coloring are Horst’s, not Victor’s. Once attrib- 
uted to Rembrandt. The same composition and the same subject in 
the Schoenlank sale, Cologne, 1896, under the name of Horst. 


Isaac Buessina Esau 
Signed “Rembrant” without a “d,” K.K.172, B.217. 


The composition here is practically the same as that in the Dublin 
picture by Horst of David’s Charge to Solomon. The gilded bedposts, 
the twisted curtains, the opening at back, the pillows, the type of old 
man, are all the same. The composition was repeated several times 
by Horst, as the pictures here listed will disclose, especially in the 
Danaé (given to Rembrandt) at Petrograd. 


BLINDING OF SAMSON 

Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.173, B.211.* Reproduced in “Burlington Maga- 
zine,” 1906, with article by Doctor Valentiner. Also in Valentiner, ‘‘ Art of 
the Low Countries.” 


The composition is a variation of the Danaé-Isaac pictures at Petro- 
grad and Berlin in the lighting, the opening at the back, the twist and 
framing of the curtains, the still-life, the thin, bluish coloring. Notice 
how the opening of the curtains at the back repeats that of the Berlin 
Isaac Blessing Jacob. It is probably Horst in a theatrical rather than 
a dramatic mood. It is an excited, restless picture and represents 
Horst rather at his worst. 


“The picture is signed and dated 1636—which proves nothing at all. In 
spite of signature and date, one may venture to think that a painter who did 
the Anatomy Lesson in 1632 and the Coppenol and Saskia at Cassel in 1633 did 
not do this coarse and brutal picture in 1636 or at any other time. It is not 
the theme that is referred to as coarse and brutal, but the drawing and the 
brushwork of it, the light and shadow of it, the color of it.”—New Guides to 
Old Masters, Frankfort, p. 119. 


THe PAaAINTER’s STUDIO 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.329, B.352. 

Instead of Rembrandt painting Hendrickje Stoffels, as conjectured, 
this is possibly Horst painting a model, and done by Horst himself. 
Notice the pose of the figure, the piled-up composition, the lighting, 
drapery, steps. It is brown-gray in hue and easily, sketchily done. 
The background is slashed in. Assignment tentative. 


JUDAS RETURNING THE SILVER 


. Initialed “R.H.,” K.K.9, B.10. 


This is so obviously a Horst that I have merely to suggest one or 
two likenesses for the other resemblances to make themselves apparent. 
Notice the Judas kneeling on the floor, and compare this figure with 
the kneeling figure in the signed Horst at Berlin, the Magnanimity of 
Scipio. They are the same. Here is the dramatic once more with 
pyramidal composition, Horst’s drawing in the hands and drapery, his 
lighting, his architecture, even his still-life hanging on the wall. Com- 
pare the outstretched hand in the Dublin David’s Charge to Solomon, 
the Petrograd Danaé, the Wauchope picture and others, with the out- 
stretched hands in this Judas picture. Huygens, writing probably be- 
tween 1630 and 1640, speaks of a Judas picture as painted by Rem- 
brandt, which may or may not be identical with this picture. Horst 


104 


NEW YORK: 
METRO POL- 
ITAN 
MUSEUM 


PARIS: 
ROTHSCHILD 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
SEDELMEYER 
GALLERIES 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


was a few years younger than Rembrandt, but could have painted this 
picture, in Rembrandt’s studio, in Huygens’ time; and Huygens could 
have confused it with Rembrandt’s work. At any rate, following the 
picture and discarding literary traditions (for regarding Rembrandt the 
most of them are untrustworthy), there is every indication of Horst’s 
hand in this picture. It has his types, dramatic quality, composition, 
drawing. It agrees positively with Horst’s work. 


BaTHSHEBA AT TOILET 
Signed Rembrandt 1643, K.K.228, B.246. 

The figure is like the Danaé at Petrograd in its doing, the old woman 
is the same attendant as in the Liechtenstein Bathsheba, the composi- 
tion with the open space at the back is characteristic of Horst. Still, 
this picture must be considered doubtful. It has resemblances to the 
work of Eeckhout. Assignment tentative. 


Tue Fiac BEARER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.147, B.206. 

Probably by the same hand that did the Frankfort picture, the type 
being like, and the drawing, handling, spirit of similar coarse quality. 
There are analogies between this picture and the Samson Threatening 
His Father-in-Law at Berlin, but the assignment should be regarded as 
tentative only. 


Portrait oF Youna Man 
Attributed.to Rembrandt, K.K.145, B.567. 

This is the model of Horst that appears as Esau in the Belton House 
Isaac Blessing Esau, and also as Pluto in the Rape of Proserpina at 
Berlin. It has the sentiment shown in the Wauchope Collection, 
Double Portrait, and the manner of doing apparent in the Bathsheba 
of the Liechtenstein Gallery. Assignment tentative. 


Ratsine oF Lazarus 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.12, B.45. 

The same pyramidal composition, the same crowding forward of 
faces, the same expressive outstretched hands, with still-life on the 
wall, platforms of stone, and a figure backed up in the left foreground 
as in the Judas picture at The Hague (K.K.9). Note again the dra- 
matic quality. It has a gray-mauve envelope, the figure of Christ in 
plum-colored purple, the man with cap in red, the still-life on the wall 
in red, the woman at left of Christ has yellow hair, the man above her 
in gold-braided cloak. Probably by Horst. 


DaANAb 
Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.176, B.194, Hanf.* 

There is no reason to suppose the subject is Danaé. The weeping 
cupid above the bed might suggest a Potiphar’s Wife, which would be 
nearer Horst’s usual subject than any classical myth. The composition 
is the same as in the Dublin and Belton House pictures, the bed with 
its gilded legs and twisted curtains is identical, the pillow with its tassel 
is the same as that in the Belton House picture, the outstretched hand 
of Danaé is that of David in the Dublin picture and the Isaac in the 
Berlin picture. The resemblances run everywhere. 

This is the strongest picture of the half-dozen that Horst composed 


PETROGRAD: 
DELAROFF 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 105 


in this fashion, and yet it is not strong enough, or quiet enough, or 
great enough for Rembrandt. I quote my note, written before the 
picture in 1913. 

“This is a very well-known picture and by no means a poor one. It is 
decidedly good in the figure, though there are lapses in the drawing’ and some 
hardness in the modelling. There is also sharpness in the outlines, as you may 
see in the nose. The ornaments of the couch, the arabesque of glittering gold 
that frames the picture, are overdone and in rather poor taste. One fails to 
see Rembrandt in this glitter, or in the nude figure, or in the old woman at the 
back, or in the cupid. Moreover, the color and light are too mouldy and lack- 
ing in depth and clarity for him. If you take the light, color, drawing, and 
handling back to the Saskia of 1633 at Cassel, you will find them in disagree- 
ment. This Danaé is too weak for the Saskia. Again, there is a thinness about 
the shadows that does not agree with Rembrandt’s work. There is, of course, 
considerable luminosity in the flesh and a decided sense of form. The picture 
is more like Eeckhout or Bol than Rembrandt, though not characteristic of 
any of them. I¢ agrees better, perhaps, with what we know about Horst. The 
picture would better be called a Rembrandt School piece for the present. It is 
an uncommonly good one, which may account for its being given to Rembrandt. 
But the painter of the Night Watch and the Five Syndics never did it.”—New 
Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. 65. 


Since writing the above note I am convinced that the Danaé is by 
Horst and no other. It is perhaps his masterpiece, but done in the 
same dramatic way, in the same technical manner as the coarse and 
brutal Samson at Frankfort or the hot Isaac and Jacob at Berlin. 


JESUS IN THE TEMPLE 


Attributed to Rembrandt (but doubted by Doctor Bode and Doctor Valentiner), 
K.K.531. 


Compare with the Judas picture at The Hague for the floor and 
low platform of stone, the grouping of figures right and left, the type 
of the chief doctor seated in the centre, the columns and curtain and 
table-cloth at left. It is Horst, perhaps in a later period of his art. 


BaTHSHEBA AT Her TorLet 
Signed Rembrandt 1632, K.K.107, B.69. 


The floor with its low stone platform, the architecture and curtain 
at back, the table-cloth and still-life point to Horst. Bathsheba has 
robes lighted and treated like those in the Samson and Delilah and the 
Samson Threatening His Father-in-Law at Berlin. She is a type 
somewhat like the women in the Rape of Proserpina at Berlin. Back 
of her the waiting woman is the same model as the waiting woman at 
the extreme right in the Berlin Scipio picture by Horst; also the left 
outstretched hand of this woman is the same as the left hand of the 
lady in the Double Portrait by Horst in the Wauchope Collection. 
This outstretched hand is a marked and telltale feature in many of 
Horst’s pictures. There are other resemblances here that might be 
cited, especially the color, which is of a reddish tone in the flesh and 
dull red in the robe. Probably an early Horst. 


Several other pictures in private possession might be placed in this list, 
but they would add little to a further understanding of Horst. A sum- 
mary of Horst made from his pictures as listed above would find him a 


106 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


versatile painter. He had feeling and invention, and with them the 
dramatic instinct. Sometimes this latter borders on the extravagant, but 
usually it is in restraint. He was an uneven workman, and somewhat 
mannered in his repetitions, but, all told, a painter of accomplishments, 
and certainly one of the most forceful of the Rembrandt following. Note 
what a distinct personality is suggested by even the few Horst pictures 
reproduced herein as illustrations. 


JANSEN, OR JANSZOON, HENDRIK 
1610 ?——_? 


Kramm makes mention of such a painter as Jansen, and also Hofstede 
de Groot lists him in the Rembrandt School, but I can find no trace of his 
paintings. Some engravings are under that name, but the name was a 
common one in the Netherlands. 


JOUDERVILLE, ISAAC DE 
1612 ?-1645 ? 


A portrait painter who was a pupil of Rembrandt probably from 1627 
to 1631. A signed portrait by him is said to be in the Dublin National 
Gallery of Ireland. That is the only record of him that appears at the 
present time. 

KEIHL, BERNHARD 
1625-1687 ? 


Probably a pupil of Rembrandt about 1650. He afterward went to 
Rome and worked there until 1687. He gave Baldinucci an account of 
Rembrandt and died a good Catholic. Some pictures by him are said 
to be in churches and in private possession in Copenhagen and Kronsberg. 
There is one picture by him in the Copenhagen Museum. 


KONINCK, PHILIPS 
1619-1688 


Portrait and landscape painter—principally the latter—pupil of Rem- 
brandt, and a painter of marked ability. His landscapes are usually of 
river basins or other flat lands, with long lines of division indicated by 
trees or bushes, and several planes in each picture. They are impressive 
in their feeling for space, their high skies and clouds, their atmospheric 
effect, their rather sombre color. Doubtless some of his landscapes of a 
forced or unusual kind have been handed over to Rembrandt. His por- 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 107 


traits have fared worse than the landscapes. A signed portrait, with 
Dullaert as the sitter, recently turned up at the Ehrich Galleries in New 
York, to astonish people by its rather romantic sentiment, its clear golden 
color, and its good handling. It is another version of a picture put down 
to Bol in the Neville-Cooper Collection, London. His landscapes appear 
in all the large European galleries. I list only a few of the principal exam- 
ples, because his work does not at the present time figure in the recon- 
struction of the Rembrandt School. 


AMSTERDAM: Two LANDSCAPES 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed. 

BERLIN: LANDSCAPE 
KAISER- Signed* 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 

DRESDEN: LANDSCAPE* 
GALLERY 

THE HAGUE: LANDSCAPE* 
MUSEUM 

LONDON: Two LANDSCAPES* 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


KONINCK, SALOMON 
1609-1656 


Probably Salomon Koninck furnished as many and as strong Rem- 
brandts as any painter of the school. He had a hasty facility in handling 
that enabled him to turn out pictures that were easily sold for Rembrandts, 
so closely were they supposed to resemble the manner of the master. Yet 
he was not a pupil of Rembrandt but of Colyns and Moeyaert. He later 
followed the Rembrandt manner, both in painting and etching, and much 
of his work in both branches is now under Rembrandt’s name. 

When this work is detached and put together under Koninck’s own 
name, it presents a very imposing showing. He, like Horst, had the 
dramatic instinct, composed many pictures of biblical and mythological 
incidents, dressed his characters in rich oriental costumes, and posed them 
with scowls and glares in heroic attitudes. It is almost unbelievable that 
one hand could be so strong and so weak, so accurate in the part and so 
inaccurate in the whole. For there is about almost every one of Koninck’s 
pictures (whether under his own name or Rembrandt’s) some defect of 
underlying structure, some weakness of color, or thinness of shadow. That 
is where the real Rembrandts proclaim themselves. They are absolutely 
right from start to finish. I know of only one Koninck for which as much 


108 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


can be said—the so-called Sobieski portrait at the Hermitage. It is right 
in every way—so right that I clung to it for ten years as a Rembrandt, but 
finally had to give it over to Koninck. 

Koninck is by no means to be treated lightly. He had great ability— 
more ability perhaps than patience. His facility led him to doing many 
things hurriedly and slurring their drawing or ensemble in his haste. At 
first he seems to have worked in the smooth and rather pretty manner of 
Moeyaert and later taken up with Rembrandt, doing canvases with a 
coarser surface and sometimes heavily loaded pigments. These latter seem 
sketches or first intentions because Koninck, as a rule, finished his pictures, 
oftentimes to a point of weakness. His distribution of light was very even 
and his tone effects, his golden color, and his display of costume were 
effective. His qualities and defects will become apparent as his pictures 
are separately considered. 


PICTURES BY KONINCK 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: An OLp Savant* 
BERS ees A poor Koninck shop piece. 


IDOLATRY OF SOLOMON 
Signed 1644. 
An excellent Koninck, with all his weakness but much of his skill. 


AMSTERDAM: SCHOLAR AT TABLE 
SIX An interior with lamplight, suggestive of the so-called Rembrandt 
COLLECTION Philosophers in the Louvre. The atmosphere and light very evenly 
and smoothly distributed—too much so for strength. 
BERLIN: CaLuinc oF MatTtHew 
KAISER- Small and many-figured, but not important. 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM CRra&sUS AND SOLON 


A typical shop Koninck, smoothly and carefully done, but unin- 
spired. With some of the Koninck swagger in the chief figure. Com- 
position at left as in the Pilate (given to Rembrandt) of the Metro- 
politan Museum, New York. 


BOSTON: Portrait oF OLD WomMANn 
MUSEUM Signed. 

BRUNSWICK: A PHILOSOPHER 
MUSEUM Signed 1649. 


With red cloth, dark-brown robe, and lumpy knuckles. Agrees 
quite perfectly with the Rembrandt Philosophers in Louvre, and the 
Paris (Sedelmeyer) Dutch Merchant. 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


GLASGOW: 
COATS 
COLLECTION 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


LIVERPOOL: 
WALKER 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
BRIDGEWATER 
HOUSE 

PARIS: 
SEDELMEYER 
COLLECTION 

ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


SCHWERIN: 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 109 


A PHILOSOPHER 

It is a weak affair that perhaps came out of Koninck’s shop, but is 
more likely by some pupil or follower of Koninck. It belongs with the 
Astronomer ascribed to Koninck at Dresden and is, in fact, by the 
same hand. 


A Hermit 
Signed 1643, Hanf.* 

_ It has no merit and gives no idea of Koninck. It is like a poor 
Lievens shop piece. The unsigned Astronomer in this gallery is a 
Koninck shop piece of no value and was once assigned to Lievens. 


Tue Miser 
A woman counting money at a table. The same model as that in 
the Boston Museum portrait, and done in the same way. 


ADORATION OF THE Maar 
Hanf.* 

Excellent in atmospheric setting, textures, and drawing. A late- 
manner picture. 


CHRIST IN THE TEMPLE 
A sketchy affair, with dotted high lights, indicated figures, and 
architecture. 


A RasBBI 


_ Accharacteristic Koninck, but now much injured by clumsy repaint- 
ing. 


Youna Man ReEapInea 
Signed 1630. 


A DutcH MerrcHant 
Signed 1639. Reproduced in Sedelmeyer’s “‘Six Hundred Paintings,” p. 27. 


Tue GoLp WEIGHER 
Signed 1654. 

A typical Koninck, in his smoother, more popular style, with much 
care given to textures of stuffs. It is thoroughly well drawn, beauti- 
fully lighted, and smoothly and easily painted. The high lights are in 
dots upon braids and ornaments. It shows Koninck’s smoother way 
of doing these interiors and corresponds to the Philosophers in the 
Louvre, put down to Rembrandt, but by Koninck. 


PILATE 
Signed 1641. 

Another popular but typical Koninck, with his models, color, han- 
dling, dotted high lights, textures, and blue-green notes, as in the 
Frankfort Koninck (given to Rembrandt) of David and Saul. 


JOSEPH INTERPRETING PHARAOH'S DREAM 
Signed 1655. 

A fairly representative Koninck, with bright colors (red especially) 
and gilded borders of robes. Here are the Koninck models, types, cos- 


110 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


tumes, hangings, and Chinese umbrella, with the haughty bearing and 
scowls of the leading characters. The picture is a good one for com- 
parisons. The man at right in velvet, writing, is like the Rembrandt 
Philosopher in the Louvre. The Pharaoh is the same model’ as the 
Pilate in the Metropolitan Museum picture of Pilate Washing His 
Hands, attributed to Rembrandt. The picture is well enough drawn, 
easily but not broadly handled, and a characteristic Koninck in his 
latest and smoothest manner. 


SAUL AND DavipD 


In this same Schwerin Gallery, attributed to Koninck, is this Saul 
and David—the Saul the same model as the Pilate in the Metropolitan 
Museum, Pilate Washing His Hands. It is a timidly done work, in the 
Koninck manner, probably by some Koninck pupil following his master. 


A Hiceu Priest 
Attributed to Koninck. 


Once given to Rembrandt, then to Lievens. Bode thinks it by 
De Wet and Schiebler says Poorter or Koninck. It is nearer Koninck 
than any other. The handling is easy, the drawing sound, the face 
shadowed. With golden-hued robes, white sleeves, and a gold vessel 
at right. Said to be a copy of a Rembrandt (probably that formerly in 
the Lehman Collection, K.K.112 is referred to), but it is not a copy of 
any one. 


Almost all of these pictures, still under Koninck’s name, are weak, thin, 
and rather pretty. Everything of any strength has been taken from him 
and given to Rembrandt. The list that follows will attempt to restore 
some of them to their proper painter. It will be noticed, even in the illus- 
trations here shown, that, weak or strong, the reunited pictures go together 
without a jar, and again reveal one distinct artistic personality. 


AMSTERDAM: 
GOUDSTIKKER 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY KONINCK 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


Davip witH Heap or GOLIATH 
Attributed to Rembrandt and signed doubtfully R. L. 1635. Reproduced with arti- 
cle in “Burlington Magazine,” vol. XV, p. 68, K.K.Supp.1. Sold as an 

Eeckhout in 1909. 

This is a small panel, ten and a half by fifteen inches, done in a 
broad manner, probably as a sketch for a larger picture. Hence its 
facility in the brushwork, its loaded and dragged high lights, its blocked- 
in sky. The whole picture—composition, light, handling, types, robes, 
costumes—is by the same (if earlier) hand as The Hague and Stockholm 
Adorations. The figure at back with flag we shall find repeated fre- 
quently in Koninck’s pictures, as also the type in the foreground of the 
man with the plumed hat and the trailing robe upheld by pages. The 
dark-shadowed foreground, with low plants, is another property of 
Koninck’s frequently repeated. Note the helmets and the halberds, 
for these, too, appear in the figure pieces of this painter. 


87. KONINCK: WORKERS IN THE VINEYARD 


Hermitage, Petrograd 


88. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PHILOSOPHER 


Louvre, Paris 


89. KONINCK: PORTRAIT OF OLD WOMAN 90. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Boston Museum OF OLD WOMAN 
Hermitage, Petrograd 


Puate XXIII 


91. KONINCK (GIVEN TO BOL): PORTRAIT OF YOUNG MAN 92. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF 
National Gallery, Edinburgh YOUNG MAN 


Petit Palais, Paris 


93. KONINCK: JOSEPH BEFORE PHARAOH 94. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): DAVID BEFORE 
Schwerin Museum SAUL 


Staedel Institute, Frankfort 


Puate XXIV 


96. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): DAVID WITH HEAD 
OF GOLIATH 
Goudstikker Collection, Amsterdam 


95. KONINCK: ADORATION OF KINGS 
The Hague Museum 


97. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): AN ORIENTAL 98. KONINCK (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): A TURK 
Metropolitan Museum, New York Old Pinacothek, Munich 


Puate XXV 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 
(LOANED BY 
MME. MAY) 


CHATSWORTH: 
DEVONSHIRE 
COLLECTION 


CHICAGO: 
KIMBALL 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 111 


The etching, attributed to Rembrandt, of the Baptism of the 
Eunuch (also said to be done by Van Vliet and Lievens, Hind No. 182), 
has the horse and rider at left in this Goudstikker picture, also at back 
the Koninck umbrella and posed figure beneath it. The etching is 
probably Koninck’s work, as well as the picture. Why should Lievens 
(to say nothing of Rembrandt) be doing etchings after Koninck’s work 
and in his style? 


PREACHING OF JOHN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.174, B.215. In grisaille. 

The same composition (only reversed in the diagonal arrangement 
of the figures) as in the Christ before Pilate in the London National 
Gallery. The grouping, types, light are all Koninck’s. Notice the 
obelisk or monument at back in both pictures. 


MINERVA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.106, B.68. 


This picture was for a time attributed to Bol. It is now, with just 
as little reason, given to Rembrandt. It probably is by Koninck, and 
in its dotted high lights and purple coat follows the Paris (in trade) 
picture and the David and Saul at Frankfort. It has features about 
it resembling the work of Horst. Assignment tentative. 


A ScHOLAR 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.19, B.43. 


To be compared with the Sedelmeyer Dutch Merchant by Koninck, 
and (in table-cloths) with the Stockholm St. Anastasius. It is a gray- 
toned picture, with gray-blue table-cloth and dark curtain. Carefully 
done. 


Man In Ortentat Heap-Dress 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.47, B.543. 


A dark picture, with Oriental turban, gold-braided under-coat, round 
eyes, and a Koninck pose and scowl. It is dark in shadows, and some- 
what rubbed and overcleaned. Never in the style of Rembrandt at 
any time, and certainly not in 1629, when it is said to have been painted 
by Rembrandt. It is probably by Koninck. 


A RasBsi 
Signed Rembrandt 1635, K.K.186, B.199. 


There are replicas or copies of this picture in several European 
galleries under the name of Koninck. All of them probably came out 
of the Koninck workshop and are of Koninck inspiration. It is his 
type of the Oriental, varied slightly in each new appearance by a differ- 
ent model, perhaps, but always the same spirit, feeling, pose, and 
handling. Notice the large hands. 


REMBRANDT’S FATHER 
Signed R.H.L., K.K.Supp. 17. 

It follows the Oriental of the Metropolitan Museum. Notice the 
similarity of pose and the breadth across the body. Another version 
in Neumann Collection, London (K.K.44). Assignment tentative. 


112 


COPENHAGEN: 
MUSEUM 


EDINBURGH: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


FRANKFORT: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
FORMERLY IN 
MURRAY 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
BRIDGEWATER 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


AN ORIENTAL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.452. 


It follows the Lehman and Schwerin pictures, noted hereafter, in 
type and method. There may be some question about Koninck doing 
this head, but there is no question about Rembrandt not doing it. 
Assignment tentative. 


Portrait oF YouNG MAN 
Attributed to Bol. 


In dull-yellow plush or velvet robe, steel gorget, cord about waist, 
and silver-threaded sash over shoulder, long flowing hair, blue-gray 
ground. It is thinly handled with much effect of textures and light 
and shade. It is even in gradation and pleasing in color. The pose, 
the eyes, the loosely drawn figure in its enveloping robe, the hand on 
the stick—especially the hand—speak for Koninck as the painter. The 
same hand and pose are shown in the Oriental attributed to Rembrandt 
in the Metropolitan Museum, and in the Rembrandt portrait in the 
Petit Palais (Dutuit) at Paris. It is an excellent, a handsome picture, 
too fine for Bol, whose handling in another picture in this gallery will 
offer a chance for comparison. Bought in 1922 and not yet catalogued. 


Davip BEFORE SAUL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.13, B.46. 

This is the same model and type, with the same rather imposing 
fling-back of the head and scowl that appear in the Hermann (New 
York), the Oldenburg, and the Stockholm pictures. It is shown also 
in the Koninck at The Hague—the Adoration of the Magi. The pic- 
ture at Frankfort is quite in the Koninck manner of lighting and draw- 
ing, including the heavy hand holding a stick, which appears in so 
many of his pictures. 

This picture was formerly attributed (and rightly) to Koninck, but 
was arbitrarily promoted to the Rembrandt name and class without 
warrant. 


Curist BEFORE PILATE 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.157, B.214, Hanf. 

Done in grisaille. A rather huddled composition, with types and 
properties used in other pictures by Koninck. The Pilate is the model 
of Pilate Washing His Hands in the Metropolitan Museum. The hal- 
berds and helmets, with the architecture and the monument at right, 
recur in other pictures by Koninck. 


WARRIOR 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 32. 


With the look, pose, figure, hand, chain of Koninck. Another ver- 
sion in the United States. Assignment tentative. 


HANNAH IN THE TEMPLE 
Signed Rembrandt 1648, K.K.291, B.325. 

It follows the Petrograd Portrait of an Old Woman, in the type, 
pose, costume, bulk and width of figure, and hands. Even the child 
is like the little pages in the Magi pictures by Koninck. Assignment 
tentative. 


LONDON: 
WINDSOR 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
DONALDSON 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


NEW HAVEN: 
MORELL 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 113 


REMBRANDT’S MOTHER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.37, B.24. 

It seems to agree with the Boston Koninck, Portrait of an Old 
Woman, very well though perhaps a little firmer in the modelling. The 
dotting of high lights in the head-dress is the same. A similar point 
of view is marked in all these heads by Koninck. 


Portrait oF YOuNG Man 
Signed R.H.L. 1631, K.K.50, B.49. 


A typical Koninck done in the style of the Boston Museum portrait 
and the Paris Petit Palais portrait given to Rembrandt. 


BELLONA 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.153, B.569. 
It has the Koninck shield and helmet, the right arm and hand, the 


arched recess at back, the general air of pose and swagger so dear to 
this painter. 


PorTRAIT OF A TURK 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.121, B.147, Hanf. 


The type and workmanship are the same as in the Metropolitan 
Oriental, the same drawing and handling of the brush. Notice the 
heavy hand and notice also the heavy jowl, with the bunch of beard 
below, as in the Metropolitan Christ Before Pilate and other Konincks. 
The picture at one time was given to Koninck. 

“This is certainly strong enough for Rembrandt. In fact, that is the 
trouble with it. It is too strong. The head is perhaps overmodelled by the 
insistence upon the high lights, and, as a result, it comes forward out of the 
canvas. That was something that Rembrandt was usually not guilty of. He 
made his heads and figures stand in instead of owt, and he surrounded them by 
light, shadow, and air. However, there is little use in cavilling over a head so 
powerfully constructed and decisively painted as this. By contrast with the 
usual examples of the Eeckhouts, Konincks, and Victors set down to Rem- 
brandt it is a wonder.”—New Guides to Old Masters, Munich, p. 57. 


THE RaIsING OF THE Cross 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.163, B.124, Hanf. 

The man on horseback at back suggests that Koninck had a hand, 
a very prominent hand, in this picture. It is one of the most beautiful 
of the series. Eeckhout had much to do with this series, and the 
series is placed under his name, but Koninck is apparent in this picture. 
It is probably one of the earliest of the group. Koninck came earlier 
than Eeckhout. Assignment tentative. 


A Rassi 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.187, B.202. 


In the manner and method of the Chatsworth picture. Probably 
by Koninck. 


Pirate Wasuina His Hanps 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.468, B.532. 

To be compared with the National Gallery, London, Christ Before 
Pilate for likenesses of type, not only in Pilate but the halberdiers at 
back. The robes, the light, the color, the drawing, the handling are 


114 


NEW YORK: 
HERMANN 
COLLECTION 


OLDENBURG: 
DUCAL 
GALLERY 


PARIS; 
LOUVRE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


all in Koninck’s manner. It is one of his pretentious but hastily 
painted pictures with pretty details, such as the boy’s head, and very 
loose construction, such as the boy’s left arm. The figures come for- 
ward out of the frame, the architecture is flat, the whole setting rather 
cardboard-like. Notice the badly drawn hands of Pilate, his false- 
valued nose and chin, his misunderstood robe. The picture is not up 
to Koninck’s standard, to say nothing of Rembrandt’s. One might be 
justified in writing it down a Koninck shop piece. 


AN ORIENTAL 
Signed R.H.L., 1632, K.K.120, B.145. 


The same type and character as shown in the Frankfort picture 
and the Paris Petit Palais picture. Also the same mind and hand at 
work in the artist. The swagger and scowl of this are Koninck, but 
never Rembrandt. Nor is the handling of the surface that mysterious 
kneading and sinking in of the pigments which Rembrandt devised to 
produce flesh, stuffs, or other materials, with no feeling of paint added 
to the exterior of objects. On the contrary, there are the dab and drag 
of pigments over the surface, atop of the objects, which give the painty 
feeling so common with Koninck. 

However, this picture of the Oriental is a work of much force and 
excellent execution for Koninck. The turban and head are well drawn, 
given with much solidity, body, bulk. In degree (not kind) it is almost 
worthy of Rembrandt. The textures of the stuffs in turban and robe 
and their color quality are again excellent. The rest of the picture is 
not so good. The head does not fit the neck, nor the neck the body. 
The shoulders and figure are only to be guessed at under the great robe. 
Notice the width of the robe as it suggests the figure underneath. It 
is peculiarly like Koninck’s other work in this respect, as is also the 
heavy shadowed hand holding a stick. The centering of light by shadow 
above and below is repeated in Koninck’s other pictures. 

Another version (of the head only) in St. Petersburg Exhibition in 
1909. It is the same head that appears in the Raising of the Cross at 
Munich. 


THe PropHet BALAAM 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.3. 


It follows the Oldenburg Baptism of the Eunuch picture in the horse 
and figure at back with Oriental head-dress, in the vegetation of the fore- 
ground, and in the robes of Balaam. It is probably an early Koninck. 
Assignment tentative. 


BaptisM OF THE EuNUCH 
K.K.517. 


Said to be an old copy after Rembrandt, but it is more likely an 
original by Koninck. I have not seen the picture, but from the photo- 
graph it has every appearance of a Koninck. The same effect at back 
with a raised figure and an umbrella is shown here as in the Granberg 
(Stockholm) and Goudstikker (Amsterdam) pictures. Also the horse 
at back and the vegetation in the foreground are Koninck properties. 
Assignment tentative. 


PHILOSOPHERS 
Signed R.H.L., 1633, K.K.111 above, B.121, B.122.* 

“*Small pictures over which, in the past, there has been some spilling of good 
printer’s ink with no very marked results. The pictures are not wonderful. 


PARIS: 
PETIT PALAIS 
(DUTUIT 
COLLECTION) 


PARIS: 
IN TRADE 


PARIS: 
FORMERLY IN 
SCHICKLER 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LEHMAN 
COLLECTION 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 115 


In fact, one may be heretical enough to think that some one like Koninck or 
Dou might have painted them. . Rembrandt was not given to the paint- 
ing of such small material.” —New Guides to Old Masters, Paris, p. 105. 

The first picture, with the light coming from the right, has Koninck’s 
model as shown in the Dutch Merchant in the Sedelmeyer Galleries, 
Paris. Even the Koninck bowl is on the window-ledge. The second 
picture, with the light coming from the left, seems a companion piece, 
but there may be some doubt about its being by Koninck. Its assign- 
ment is tentative. 


REMBRANDT’S PoRTRAIT 
Signed 1631, K.K.54, B.550. 

In the perhaps early style of Koninck, with small dotted high lights, 
purple velvet robe, silk under coat, casques on table, heavy gloved 
hand, posed figure, severe look with a half-scowl on face. Gray-lighted 
ground and rubbed-in hair. 


MINERVA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.105, B.67. 


REMBRANDT’S SISTER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.55, B.551. 


Another version in Ehrich Galleries, New York, in 1919, there 
ascribed to Koninck. 


A Hic Priest 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.112, B.42. 
A similar picture by Koninck in the Schwerin Museum. 


An ORIENTAL 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.121, B.146. 

It follows the Munich Portrait of a Turk and the Metropolitan 
Oriental, but is not so strong a picture as either of them. 


PortrRAIT OF MAN 
Signed 1637, K.K.216, B.228, Hanf.* 

Quite a perfect bust portrait of a model dressed in a fancy costume. 
It is the most powerful head in the Hermitage and quite worthy of 
Rembrandt. Splendidly modelled and painted as it is, it nevertheless 
has to be given to Koninck. It is his handling and modelling rather 
than Rembrandt’s, his type and dramatic scowl, heavy jowl, hand, and 
neck chain. I cannot find Rembrandt in any of his works doing the 
braggadocio of this portrait. It fits in with the Frankfort Saul and 
David, the Metropolitan Oriental, the Munich Head of a Turk; but 
try to place it with the Night Watch, the Lesson in Anatomy, the Cloth 
Syndics, or put it beside the Coppenol or the Burggraeff or the London 
Portrait of a Man, and it will not blend or affiliate in mind, method, or 
emotion. 


Portrait oF Otp WomMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1643, K.K.250, B.263, Hanf.* 

Compare it closely for the manner of doing with the signed Boston 
Koninck, Portrait of an Old Woman, and the identity of the painter 
must be recognized. The head, head-dress, cloak, lighting, spotting, 


116 


PORT ELIOT: 
SAINT 
GERMANS 


COLLECTION | 


PRAGUE: 
COUNT 
NASTITZ 
COLLECTION 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 


STOCKHOLM: 
MUSEUM 


STOCKHOLM: 
GRANBERG 
COLLECTION 


TOLEDO: 
LIBBY 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


are identical. Even the Koninck bow] is on the table, as in the Sedel- 
meyer Dutch Merchant picture by Koninck. 


Davin BEForRE Savuu 
Signed Rembrandt 1631, K.K.Supp. 20. 
It follows the Goudstikker and Granberg pictures. 


A Raps 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.186, B.198. 


It follows the Chatsworth and New Haven pictures of Rabbis, and 
also agrees with the Sedelmeyer Koninck of a Dutch Merchant, listed 
above. Even the Koninck pens and inkstand are the same in both 
pictures. 


PAINTER IN STUDIO 
Attributed to Dou, K.K., p. xv. 


It is perhaps a picture by Koninck. The picture on the easel con- 
tains Koninck’s types. Another version, with the painter seated at his 
easel, at one time in Bachstitz Gallery, The Hague. Assignment tenta- 
tive. 


St. ANASTASIUS 
Signed “‘ Rembrant” 1631, K.K.19, B.40. 


It follows in subject and treatment the Philosophers in the Louvre, 
but again there is just a shade of doubt about its being by Koninck. 
The attribution should be regarded as tentative. All of these interior 
pictures lighted from a window should be compared with the Konincks 
in the Six Collection, Amsterdam, and the Brunswick Museum. 


ADORATION OF THE Maat 


Attributed to Rembrandt. Reproduced with article in “Burlington Magazine,” 
vol. XXVII, p. 48, K.K.Supp. 21. 


To be closely compared with the Koninck, Adoration of the Magi, 
at The Hague. This Granberg picture is a smaller and more sketchy 
picture than that at The Hague, has been handled more freely, and has 
the freshness and boldness of the sketch. Hence it is thought to be 
Rembrandt, whereas it is Koninck in one of his facile, swiftly done 
effects, done perhaps for the use of pupils. The types, characters, cos- 
tumes are all Koninck’s. Compare the man at the back with the 
umbrella effect in both pictures, also the kneeling Magi, their robes in 
their flow and fall, the small whispering pages, the helmet and halberds, 
and finally the lighting and pyramidal composition. Add in this com- 
parison the Goudstikker Amsterdam picture, and at the same time 
look over all the Oriental-clad people on the list for Koninck’s types 
and costumes. This Granberg picture was formerly given to Koninck. 


PorRTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.33. 

Somewhat suggestive of Ferdinand Bol, but it should be compared 
with the Metropolitan Museum Oriental for a similar manner of joining 
the head, neck, and body, and for the sacklike bulk and width of the 
figure. The head done like the Chicago portrait. Assignment ten- 
tative. 


CHAPTER XI 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 
(CONTINUED) 


LIEVENS, JAN 
1607-1674 


IEVENS, in his day, was a boy-wonder, doing remarkable copies of 
pictures at ten, and becoming a full-fledged portrait painter at eight- 
een, with a reputation for excellent portraits. For a long time he was 
considered by the public as a greater painter than Rembrandt.!. The two 
were friends, having probably met in the studio of Lastman, where Lievens 
is said to have been a student for two years, and where Rembrandt was 
a pupil about 1624 or later. The influence of Rembrandt upon Lievens 
is undoubted. It has, indeed, been a theory of some Rembrandt writers 
that they worked together, especially upon etching plates, and that the 
initials “R.H.L.”’ meant a combination of Rembrandt and Lievens. There 
is small doubt that many of the etchings by Lievens are still catalogued 
under Rembrandt’s name. 

In 1631 Lievens is said to have visited England and painted the royal 
family and some of the nobility there. Later he returned to Leyden and 
then went to Antwerp, where he possibly fell under Van Dyck influence. 
But the main influence of his life came from Rembrandt. In Lastman’s 
studio they probably worked over the same subjects and models and were 
taught the same methods, so there is little wonder that their work was 
superficially regarded as much alike. 

But Lievens never had the mind nor intense feeling nor powerful tech- 
nique of Rembrandt. He was always thinner of handling and softer in 
modelling. He had a way of ploughing the wet surface of his picture with 
a sharp instrument (probably the wooden end of the brush) in such 
features as the hair or beard. It was apparently some love for the flow of 
an engraved line and its results in modelling that led him to try the same 
effect in painting. His pictures can frequently be detected by following 
this mannerism. 

1““Rembrandt surpasses Lievens in taste and in quick sensibility, but is inferior to him in sublimity of 
invention and a certain audacity in ideas and forms.”—Huygens (writing in 1631), translated in Brown’s 


“Rembrandt,” p. 60. 
117 


118 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Pictures under his own name are rather scarce, considering that he was 
known for doing much work, and did not die until nearly sixty. He 
painted portraits, history, landscape, and etched almost every subject, but 
in spite of his success died insolvent, like his friend Rembrandt. Five of 
his pictures were in Rembrandt’s inventory at the time of his bankruptcy 
sale. That many of his works are now under Rembrandt’s name I have 
endeavored to indicate by the following lists. Some of the assignments 
are necessarily tentative, and others may suggest Lievens shopwork or a 
Lievens following. Quite often with these so-called Rembrandts one meets 
with pictures that are not good enough for either master or pupil. Aside 
from this, Lievens is sometimes confused with Flinck. 


PICTURES BY LIEVENS 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: SAMSON AND DELILAH 
RYKS Signed J.L., also signed (wrongly) ‘‘ Rembrandt f. 1633.” 
MUSEUM 


APOTHEOSIS OF PEACE 
Signed 1652. 


Heap or Boy 
Signed by Lievens and further inscribed to the effect that Rembrandt retouched the 


picture. 
BERGAMO: Otp Man 
GALLERY Illustrated in “‘Raccolte d Arte, Galleria Lochis,” plate 134. 


With brush ploughings through the wet paint. Same model as in 
the Brunswick Abraham’s Sacrifice. 


BRUNSWICK: ABRAHAM’S SACRIFICE 

MUSEUM This is usually considered Lievens’ masterpiece—a fine, large 
work, done with feeling and spirit, as well as good workmanship. 
Abraham’s gown is a washed-out red. A fire at left, and, below, a 
newly slaughtered lamb. Landscape and sky at right. The boy Isaac 
is a little soft in drawing in the face, and pulpy in the hands. Abraham 
slightly ploughed (or painted to indicate the same effect) in beard. 
Easily painted, and not heavily loaded or dragged. 


Bust oF OLD Man 
Signed L. 

The Hague picture of the same subject is probably a copy of this 
Brunswick picture, which is freely done and ploughed in the beard 
through the wet paint. The same model was used by Lievens a num- 
ber of times to represent different characters. 


COPENHAGEN: PorTRAIT OF MAN 
MUSEUM Signed. 


In profile, early, smooth in style, and not ploughed with brush. 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


HAARLEM: 
FRANS HALS 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


HAMBURG: 
KUNSTHALLE 


LEIPSIC: 
MUSEUM 


LEYDEN: 
TOWN HALL 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LUTZSCHENA: 
STERNBERG 
COLLECTION 

MUNICH: 

OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


PARIS: 
STEENGRACHT 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 119 
A Youne Warrior 
Initialed. 

Scratched in the hair and softly modelled. 


An Otp Man 


An early one of the old-man series. 


Heap oF Otp Woman 
(Loaned by an Austrian Collector in summer of 1922.) 

A profile with particolored head-dress and a white scarf hanging 
therefrom. The face outline is against a brown ground and the back 
of the head-dress brown against a gray ground. Easily handled, with 
dragged high lights, and slightly kneaded surface. An excellent head, 
strong enough for Rembrandt, and might easily be mistaken for Rem- 
brandt’s work. 


Bust oF AN Otp MAN 
“The head is not badly done. It is in the style of a number of similar 
heads attributed to Rembrandt in the European galleries. It should be kept 


in mind both for the type (the model) and the manner of its doing.”—New 
Guides to Old Masters, The Hague, p. 77. 


Probably a shop variation of the Brunswick head. 


Portrait oF OLD WoMAN 

A Lievens of excellent modelling and very effective brush han- 
dling. This is the sort of a picture that quite upsets one’s precon- 
ceived opinions about Lievens or his followers. It is precisely in the 
Lievens manner, but exceptionally well done. 


Heap or YounGa GIRL 


An early Lievens, with bright colors, soft modelling, and scratched 
hair. 


MAGNANIMITY OF SCIPIO 


PortTRAIT OF A MAN 
Signed with initials.* 

It shows the influence of Van Dyck, but there is some doubt about 
the attribution of the picture. 


PROFILE oF OLD MANn 


Otp Man with Hour Grass 
(No. 422.) 
A little uncertain, and yet in the Lievens style. 


AN Otp Man 
(No. 424.) 


Man 1n RED 
Signed. 


120 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


NEWBATTLE 

ABBEY: 
LOTHIAN 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
IMPERIAL 
GALLERY 


VIENNA: 
CZERNIN 
COLLECTION 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


AMSTERDAM: 
GOUDSTIKKER 
COLLECTION 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


OL_p Man 
Ploughed through the wet paint. Once attributed to Rembrandt. 


PortrRAIT OF OLD Man 
Red cap, long beard, fur-lined coat. The same old-man model 
shown in other pictures by Lievens. 


PortTRAIT OF MAn 

At one time it passed as a David Teniers and was photographed as 
such. An undoubted Lievens in drawing and handling. It is so 
attributed to-day. 


SELF PORTRAIT 
Signed. 

A small and negligible bust portrait surrounded by a garland of 
flowers that is out of value and detrimental to the portrait. Of no 
importance and not characteristic of Lievens. 


Youna Man 
Signed L. 
Ploughed in the wet paint. 


PICTURES BY LIEVENS 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


Portrait oF YouNG WoMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1639, K.K.243, B.274, Hanf.* 

“The portrait is much cleaned and the finer touches of the brush (the final 
surface modellings) are lost.” —New Guides to Old Masters, Amsterdam, :p. 44..: 


In 1911 I thought this merely an overcleaned and repainted early 
Rembrandt, but since then I find on re-examination that it is probably 
a Lievens, especially in the drawing of the mouth and the doing of the 
hair and hand. The hair is ploughed through the wet paint with a 
sharp instrument, to produce a modelling of the hair rather than a 
drawing of it. Compare it with the Brera, Milan, and the Elgin por- 
traits. Both Rembrandt and Lievens may have worked upon it. As- 
signment tentative. 


APposTLE Pau. 
Signed “ Rembrand”’ without the “t,’ K.K.Supp. 3. 

A Lievens theme, books, and old man with red eyes. Probably 
early, hard in drawing, especially in the hands. Ploughed somewhat in 
the hair and beard. Compare it with the Paris Sedelmeyer, Man Cut- 
ting a Pen. 


REMBRANDT’S PORTRAIT 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.144, B.168, Hanf.* 

“|. . The modelling is soft or pumpkin-like. The work agrees with the 
authentic pictures of Jan Lievens. Moreover there are ploughings or scratch- 
ings in the hair, done with the wooden end of the brush, which was a peculiar 
trick of this same Rembrandt follower—Jan Lievens.”’—New Guides to Old 
Masters, Berlin, p. 85. 


BERLIN: 
PRIVATE 
POSSESSION 


BREMEN: 
KUNSTHALLE 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 121 


Tue Monty CHANGER 
Initialled R.H. 1627, K.K.4, B.1.* 

_ The same theme, type, bags, books, and the same effect of light that 
Lievens used elsewhere. Compare this picture with the Paris Sedel- 
meyer picture of a Man Cutting a Pen. 


REMBRANDT’S PorTRAIT 
Signed. K.K. Frontispiece, B.167 

Probably by the same hand as No. 808 in this gallery—that is, 
Lievens—and both of them early works in the Rembrandt manner. 


ORIENTAL 
K.K.Supp. 39. 


A variation of the same Lievens head shown in the Hampton Court 
and Oldenburg pictures, attributed to Rembrandt and listed hereafter. 


St. Pau. 
Initialled Rembd, K.K.16, B.34. 

No ploughings in the beard, but small brush lines to produce a 
similar effect. The drawing (especially of the hands) confirms Lievens 
as the painter. It is soft and pulpy in modelling. It has a gray 
scheme of light and color, with dull-blue robe. The model is the weary- 
looking old man frequently seen in Lievens’ pictures. 


PortTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.27, B.11, Hanf.* 

“A small picture with a dark shadow over the eyes and forehead that does 
not indicate Rembrandt. There is no certainty about either the subject or the 
painter. The hair is scratched with the wooden end of the brush to make 
ringlets. This is a mannerism of Jan Lievens. The portrait bears other indi- 
cations of being by him, such as the soft modelling.”’—New Guides to Old Masters, 
Cassel, p. 156. 


It is a Lievens that follows the early Lievens work at Copenhagen 
of a young man in profile—the Copenhagen portrait being the earlier. 


OLtp Man 
Signed R.H.L., van Ryn 1632, K.K.116, B.137, Hanf.* 

“Rather red in the face and labored in the flesh painting as though the 
painter had gone over it again and again or it had been repainted by a later 
hand. ... The head and hair are put in with many strokes of the brush and 
then, as though still dissatisfied with the result, the surface is cut into by the 
wooden end of the brush through the wet paint. Notice this in the forehead. 
The handling, drawing, modelling show the brush of Lievens. The model 
appears at Munich in the Sacrifice of Abraham (No. 332).”—New Guides to 
Old Masters, Cassel, p. 156. 


Stupy Hap or aN Otp Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.115, B.136, Hanf.* 

It is an excellent piece of drawing, with Lievens’ peculiarly soft 
handling. Also the Lievens eyes. 


Portrait oF Man with GOLDEN CHAIN 
Signed R.H.L. 1630, K.K.46, B.32, Hanf. 
“The flesh is somewhat kneaded and the beard a bit tortured. The shadow 


122 


COPENHAGEN: 
GALLERY 


ESSEN: 
KRUPP 
COLLECTION 


GOTHA: 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
HOFSTEDE DE 
GROOT 
COLLECTION 


HAMPTON 
COURT 


HAMBURG: 
MULLER 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
BUCKINGHAM 
PALACE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


under the cap is luminous. A good work, but not among the best portraits in 
this gallery. It was probably done by Lievens.” —New Guides to Old Masters, 
Cassel, p. 153. 

The same model and done in the same way as the Cassel Old Man, 
listed above (K.K.116), but running close to the Koninck type and 
way of handling. The same model sat for a study head, in all prob- 
ability, to both painters. It will be remembered that Lievens and 
Koninck came at about the same time, there being only two years’ 
difference in their ages. Rembrandt was born in 1606, Lievens in 1607, 
Koninck in 1609. Why should not all of them have used the same 
model? The model appears again in the Petrograd picture of Abra- 
ham’s Sacrifice, given to Rembrandt, but that does not of itself justify 
an attribution to Lievens. 


Otp Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 110. 

With ploughed hair and in Lievens’ style, but much coarser and 
hotter than his usual work. The drawing is not sure and the paint is 
heaped in uncertain wrinkles and folds on the forehead. This is 
Lievens’ model with the tired look and the red eyelids, but the flesh 
is too hot and the drawing too poor for Lievens. It is probably by one 
of his pupils following his model and method. 


REMBRANDT’S MotTHER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.36. 


Probably by Lievens. It is his red-eyed type. 


Many replicas of it 
in existence. 


PorTRAIT OF REMBRANDT 
Signed R.H.L. 1629, K.K.27, B.13. 


Another study sketch of the same head as in the Cassel Portrait 
above. ‘There is not the slightest reason for thinking it either of or by 
Rembrandt. Both heads are by the same hand—that of Lievens. 
Both are ploughed in the hair and both are small study-heads only. 


REMBRANDT’S PORTRAIT 
Not signed, K.K.Supp. 106. 

With ploughed hair; also in Lievens’ spirit. I have seen this por- 
trait only in photograph and list it tentatively, and with apologies to 
its owner, who is a Rembrandt authority. 


OLtp Man 
Signed Rembrandt 1635, K.K.188, B.201. 
It follows the Oldenburg picture in model and method. 


O_p Man 
Signed R.H.L., K.K.Supp, 15. 
Study head, a variation of K.K.46, also K.K.187. 


A Rassi 
Not signed, K.K.188, B.200. 
With the painted effect of ploughing in the beard. 


99. LIEVENS: PORTRAIT OF MAN 100. LIEVENS (GIVEN TO REMBRAND’ 
Imperial Museum, Vienna Sedelmeyer Galleries, Paris 


A SCHOL: 


101. LIEVENS: OLD MAN 102. LIEVENS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): OLD MAN 
Brunswick Museum Fabbri Collection, New York 


PLaTE XXVI 


103. LIEVENS: ABRAHAM’S OFFERING 104. LIEVENS (RETOUCHED BY REMBRANDT): 
Brunswick Museum PORTRAIT OF BOY 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


105. LIEVENS: PORTRAIT OF OLD MAN 106. LIEVENS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): MAN’S PORTRAIT 
Hermitage, Petrograd Cassel Gallery 


Puate XXVII 


LONDON: 
DERBY 
COLLECTION 


MILAN: 
BRERA 


NEW YORK: 
FABBRI 
COLLECTION 


NURNBERG: 
GERMANIC 
MUSEUM 


OLDENBURG: 
GALLERY 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PARIS: 


SEDELMEYER 


GALLERIES 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 123 


A RaBBI 
Signed Rembrandt 163 ?, K.K.187, B.203. 


It follows the Brunswick and Bergamo pictures in type and han- 
dling. The same model appears several times in Lievens’ pictures. 


REMBRANDT’S SISTER 
Signed R.H.L. van Ryn, 1632, K.K.56, B.56. 

This is the portrait described in contrast with the Rembrandt of 
the same subject in Chapter IV. I need add nothing further except to 
now call attention to the drawing (especially of the mouth), as it agrees 
with the Amsterdam portrait here listed. Also the hair is ploughed 
through the wet paint. Assignment tentative. 


Stupy Heap or OLtp Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.46, B.33. 

The same model used in the Brunswick Abraham Embracing Isaac, 
by Lievens, also the same as the head of the Old Man, at Bergamo, 
with ploughings in the beard and hair, there as here. More certainly 
than the others, perhaps, is it the same model as the St. Paul in the 
Bremen Kunsthalle; and it is done in precisely the same way. Prob- 
ably a Lievens. 


APOSTLE PAUL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.15, B.3. 


Agrees with Old Man portrait at Schwerin. It is the same type, 
light, drawing, and pose. 


Otp Man 
Signed R.H.L. van Ryn, 1632, K.K.116, B.141. 

It is not ploughed or scratched, but painted with many small brush 
strokes in the hair, to produce the same effect. It is exactly in the 
Lievens style of drawing and handling and has his sentiment. 


Otp Man 
Said to be falsely signed Rembrandt 1648, K.K.119, B.140. 

In the style of the other Oldenburg picture, but this one is scratched 
in the beard. The manner of doing the mustache is identical in all 
these old-man studies. Lievens seems to have done a number of them. 
The same model as in the Hampton Court picture. 


READING HERMIT 
Signed R.H.L. 1630, K.K.18, B.557. 


Portrait oF Otp Man 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.118, B.142.* 

With red, sad eyes, wrinkled brow, many small strokes of the brush 
in the beard, and a yellowish tone, due perhaps to many coats of var- 
nish. It has the appearance and look of an early Lievens. 


PHILOSOPHER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 109. 


It follows the Paris picture of a Man Cutting a Pen. The man has 
a purple cap, a long beard scratched in the wet paint, and the same sad 


124 


PETROGRAD: 
STROGANOFF 
COLLECTION 


PHILADELPHIA: 


WIDENER 
COLLECTION 


SCHWERIN: 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
IMPERIAL 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


VIENNA: 
MAYER 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


sore eyes and wrinkles peculiar to the Lievens model. The peculiar 
little cap appears several times in these Lievens heads. 


Man Curttine a PEN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 108. 


It follows the Vienna Mayer picture, is bright blue in the robe, 
sore-eyed, scratched in the beard. 


JEREMIAH 
Signed R.H.L. 1630, K.K.17, B.39. 


The Lievens type, pose, light, and handling as shown in the Schwerin 
portrait and elsewhere. 


SASKIA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.129, B.153. 

The same round, boneless face, with uncertain contours and ques- 
tionable drawing of the mouth as in the other pictures by Lievens. 
This Widener picture has a beautiful reddish-golden tone. It is prob- 
ably by Lievens, but the assignment is tentative. It is possibly by Flinck. 


Portrait OF OLD Man 
Attributed to Salomon Koninck (No. 578). 

It is given to Koninck by Bode and Schiebler, but it has not one 
sign of Koninck in it. It is a palpable Lievens in every way—gray 
tone, pulpy, soft modelling, sad type, hands. Besides, it has ploughings 
in the wet paint and is the same old-man model done by Lievens half 
a dozen times, and always the same way. 


OL_p Man 
Signed R.L. and given to Rembrandt (No. 854). 

The same model, done in the same way as No. 578 in this museum. 
Here are the red eyes, wrinkles, and brush ploughings. An unmis- 
takable Lievens, but strongly done, freely handled, with a golden 
scheme of color. The figure is merely indicated in bulk. 


APOSTLE PauL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.16, B.35. 


It follows the Apostle Paul at Bremen, and is a variation of that 
composition. 


PortTRAIT OF YOUNG GIRL 
Attributed to Bol. 

It is a profile with yellow hair and red head-band. It is softly 
modelled and with much interest centred upon the flowing hair. Done 
with long, sweeping strokes of the brush, after the manner of Lievens, 


A SCHOLAR 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.14, B.4. 


Said to be a study for a picture in possession of Doctor Bode. With 
Gerard Dou’s initials at the back, just where a forger would naturally 
put them. A number of pictures of this kind were turned out of the 
Lievens shop. They all have red, squinting eyes, many wrinkles, with 
scratchings and ploughings of the brush. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 125 


VIENNA: REMBRANDT’s MotTHER 
CZERNIN Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K. Supp. 10. 
COLLECTION 


It is the old-woman type of Lievens, corresponding to his old-man 
type. Compare it with the Apostle Paul of the Goudstikker Collection. 
Follow the hands. 


WELBECK PortrRAIT OF Boy 

ABBEY: Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.141, B.181. 
PORTLAND It follows the Amsterdam Portrait of a Boy given to Lievens and 
COLLECTION said to be retouched by Rembrandt. Assignment tentative. 


A number of other pictures in private holding might be put down to 
Lievens, but it would not add to our knowledge of him appreciably. He 
was a facile and a mannered painter, though possessed of high ability. 
Sometimes he surprises one with a new model or a new method, but he 
remains the same mentally throughout. 


LESIRE, PAULUS 
1611-1656 


Lesire is thought to have been a pupil of J. G. Cuyp, and, like his 
master, to have been influenced by Rembrandt. His pictures are very 
few, and it is difficult to get at his style or his personality. There are a 
number of engravings after his work. Several pictures by him are said to 
be in London, in private possession. 


LEUPENIUS OR LUPENIUS, JOANNES 
1647-1693 


A landscape painter and engraver, with a few engraved plates and 
etchings standing in his name, but with no pictures. He was a pupil of 
Rembrandt, and perhaps added his quota to works sent out from the shop 
in the last years of the master. 


LEVECQ, OR LAVECQ, JAKOB 
1634-1675 


A portrait painter whose portraits are said to have passed for Rem- 
brandts. He was a pupil of Rembrandt, and in 1655 belonged to the 
Dordrecht Guild. He travelled and painted in France, and later in life 
took up with the style of De Baen. Portraits of his are said to be in 
private possession in London and Vienna, but there are only three or four 
extant, and these are not well authenticated. He is one of a dozen Rem- 
brandt pupils and followers who no doubt contributed to the ewuvre, but 
one cannot now readily identify his pictures. 


126 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PICTURES BY LEVECQ 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: PorTRAIT OF GENTLEMAN 
RYKS Initialed 1672. 
MUSEUM 


Bust portrait, long hair, right hand on breast, left hand on sill. A 
little too pretty. 


PARIS: PortTRAIT oF MAN 
PORGES Signed J. Levecg, 1665. 
COLLECTION 


Hand on parapet, curtain at back, landscape at right with building. 


MAES, NICOLAES 
1632-1693 


There are plenty of pictures by Maes under his own name, but most of 
them are in his late style—a style which ran to the pretty and the mere- 
tricious. He was a pupil of Rembrandt, probably between 1648 and 1652, 
and learned the broader method of treatment then used and, no doubt, 
taught in the Rembrandt shop. He painted many pictures at this period 
which have been (and some still are) under Rembrandt’s name. They are 
peculiarly marked and mannered by blackness of shadows, whiteness of 
lights, an unusual use of bright red, and a cramped and pinched drawing, 
particularly noticeable in the face and hands. About 1660 he went to 
Antwerp and was perhaps there influenced by the Antwerp method of 
painting. At any rate, the portraits thereafter that are attributed to him 
are changed in conception and handling. They are rather full, gay, bright 
in color, and smooth, even pretty, in handling. It has been surmised that 
these later portraits (almost like the portraits by Netscher) were in reality 
done by a son, or at least by another hand. Certainly they have little or 
no connection with the Rembrandt School and need not detain us. 

Maes also painted many genre pictures of interiors, with old women or 
girls peeling apples or spinning. They are somewhat in the style of Pieter 
de Hooch and are of excellence only when done in his earlier manner. The 
later ones are rather degenerate and run to pretty surfaces and weak sen- 
timent. It is from these genre pictures, and particularly from the woman 
model that he used as spinner, sleeper, and reader, that one is enabled to 
trace his work in the Rembrandt euvre. He painted this model many 
times, and finally painted her dead and in her shroud as a very old woman. 
No one else of the Rembrandt school ever used this model, so there should 
be no confusion with other works. The model appears in the Old Woman 
Cutting Her Nails, in the Metropolitan Museum, ascribed to Rembrandt. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 127 


She is then perhaps sixty-five. The picture of her in her shroud at the 
Brussels Museum shows her possibly over eighty. The painting of her 
begins with the broad and coarse style which Maes got from the Rem- 
brandt shop, and finally ends with the smooth style of his late spinners, 
such as the Old Woman Saying Grace, in the Ryks Museum. 

Maes had a very successful career and was master to a number of cred- 


itable pupils. 


His late rosy and enamelled portraits made him famous— 


famous beyond his deserts. I list the pictures by him that are Rem- 


brandtesque. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


BARNARD 

CASTLE: 
BOWES 
MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 

BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY MAES 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Otp Woman Sayine GRACE 
Signed Hanf.* 
The Maes type and model. 


DREAMING 
Signed Hanf.* 


OL_p WomMAN SPINNING 
(No. 1503.) Signed Hanf. 


OLtp WoMAN SPINNING 
(No. 1504.) Signed Hanf.* 


Portrait oF Otp WomMAN 
(No. 142.) Signed 1666. 

It was probably done at the beginning of the painter’s smoother 
period. 


OL_p WomAN PEELING APPLES 
Hanf.* Reproduced in Bode, “‘ Dutch Painters,” p. 52. 


THE SLEEPER 
Reproduced in Fierens-Gevaert, “Musée de Bruxelles,” p. 118.* 

Seated in chair, with furs, red table-cloth, still-life. Veins showing 
in hand, lead-gray background. Same model as Study of Dead Woman 
(No. 617) in this gallery. 


Tur READER 
Reproduced in ‘‘ Masters in Art,” March, 1908.* 


Portraits OF RAsIERES AND WIFE 

Illustrating the late and prettier manner of Maes—a manner that 
seems a contradiction, and is seriously doubted if belonging to Maes. 
In any event, portraits of this kind and time have little to do with the 
Rembrandtesque phase of Maes. There are several of them—Lely-like 
or Netscheresque—in the Brussels Museum, put down to Maes. 


128 


BUDAPEST: 
MUSEUM 


DORDRECHT: 
MUSEUM 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PorTRAIT OF A WoMAN 

“It has the cramped look and drawing of Maes, but is done a little later 
than the woman’s portrait at London (No. 1675) and the woman’s portrait at 
Brussels (No. 368), both of them attributed to Rembrandt, but done by the 
painter of this Budapest portrait—Maes. He is here becoming a little weak 
and pretty in his surfaces and he is also weakening and softening in his drawing.” 
—New Guides to Old Masters, Budapest, p. 139. 


PortTRAIT OF A MAn 

Done in the same vein as the woman’s portrait above, and to be 
compared with the attributed Rembrandt Architect, at Cassel (No. 
246). . 


PortrAIT oF JACOB DE WITT 
Signed 1657. 

Done in the style of the Portrait of an Old Woman at the Brussels 
Museum, now assigned to Levecq, as once to Rembrandt, but by 
Maes (No. 368). The drawing and handling here are the same, that 
is, exact and positive but not tight. The coat is thinly but freely done, 
the hair thin and straight, the face powerful in drawing and freely 
brushed. An excellent portrait that shows Maes at his best. It agrees 
with the Man’s Portrait formerly in the Lehman Collection, Paris— 
may be the same work—and agrees very well with the Portrait of a 
Man put down to Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum (Marquand 
gift). It makes the many pretentious and prettified portraits assigned 
to him seem so many impossibilities. Maes, Bol, and Jurian Ovens 
are confused in these large porcelain-like portraits. Perhaps Ovens was 
responsible for most of them. See the signed Ovens here at Dordrecht, 
which looks like an extravagant Bol. Unfortunately, no photograph 
of this Dordrecht Maes is obtainable. 


PorTRAIT OF A MANn 
Signed Hanf.* 

‘“*. . . The portrait is not remarkable, but should be carried in mind to 
Cassel, where the Portrait of an Architect (No. 246), similar in style—type, 
color, handling, and all—will be found ascribed to Rembrandt. Even the vein- 
ing in the hands is shown here as there . . . One hand painted them both and 
that hand was not Rembrandt’s. But, of course, this Hague portrait is much 
weaker than the one at Cassel.” —New Guides to Old Masters, The Hague, p. 78. 


Seated in a red chair, with red table-cloth, fur-lined velvet coat, 
white collar and cuffs. A full-faced version of the same model, signed, 
is at Barbizon House. The Budapest portrait is also a version of The 
Hague portrait. 


THe Carp PLAYERS 
Reproduced Bode, “Dutch Painters,” p. 51.* 

Note the emphasis of the joints of the hands, the nails, and the red 
knuckles. Note the hand on the table, with the knuckle effect of skin 
being torn from the knuckles. This same small mannerism is repeated 
in the Portrait of an Old Lady (No. 1675), assigned to Rembrandt in 
this gallery. Note also the dark shadows of the eyes, and the shadow 
on the white drapery of the sleeve. These should all be compared with 
those in the portrait (No. 1675) in this gallery put down to Rembrandt 
but really by Maes. 


LONDON: 
CHRISTIE’S 
SALE, 
FEB., 1909 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 

PARIS: 

LOUVRE 


PARIS: 
LEHMAN 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
DURAND-RUEL 
GALLERIES 


ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


VIENNA: 
LIECHTEN- 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 129 
THe IpLE SERVANT* 
Signed 1655. 


Tue Cook Marp 
Signed 1655. 


PortTRAIT OF OLD WoMAN 
Signed 1669. 


The same type and the same painter as that of the Old Woman in 
the National Gallery, attributed to Rembrandt (No. 1675). 


PortTRAITS OF MAN AND WoMAN 
(Nos. 386, 398.) 
In the late manner of Maes. 


Youne Girt PEELING APPLES 


Oxtp WomAN SayInG GRACE 
Reproduced in Geoffroy, ‘‘Le Louvre,” p. 117. 


PortTrRAIT OF MAN 

Signed 1656. Reproduced in Sedelmeyer’s “Three Hundred Paintings,” p. 94. 
This Portrait of a Man agrees exactly with the Jacob de Witt in the 

Dordrecht Museum, also with the (Marquand) Portrait of a Man, 

given to Rembrandt, in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. 


Portrait oF WoMAN 
Signed 1656. Reproduced in Sedelmeyer’s “Three Hundred Paintings,” p. 94. 


PortRAIT OF A WoMAN 

The same type, and almost certainly the same model, of half a 
dozen portraits attributed to Rembrandt, but in reality by Maes, as 
hereafter listed. It is a little fuller and freer than the so-called Rem- 
brandts, not so cramped in drawing, and has reddish cheeks. The 
drawing, especially of the eyes and eyelids, is identical in all these old- 
women portraits. 


PortTRAIT OF MAERTEN NIEUWPORT 


Portrait oF Maria COoLvE (WIFE OF ABOVE) 
Signed. 

Both of these portraits are in the exalted manner of Maes, and 
resemble works put down to Bol and Ovens. Well done, but not char- 
acteristic of Maes in his Rembrandt manner. Lurid red skies at back 
in both portraits. 


Group or Man, Wire, AND CHILD 
Signed. 

A little in the style of the De Witt at Dordrecht, but smoother 
and weaker, with exact drawing. A rather imposing group, showing 
still another kind of picture put down to Maes. 


STEIN GALLERY WOMAN EMBROIDERING 


130 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


By no means all the pictures under the name of Maes are given here, 
but these are sufficient to give an idea of Maes as a Rembrandt pupil and 
follower. He was a versatile but not very well-poised painter, sometimes 
doing things that are weak in themselves, and then again resorting to 
forced and violent effects that miss their aim. He lacked stability and set- 
tled conviction, and such defects are apparent in his work. 


PICTURES BY MAES 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


BRUSSELS: Portrait oF OLtp Woman 
MUSEUM Attributed to Levecg (formerly to Fabritius) in the Catalogue and Rembrandt on 
the frame (No. 368).* 


“The picture is by Nicolaes Maes, and an excellent portrait—quite as good 
as some Rembrandts. The drawing of the eyes and eyelids, the reddish flesh 
color in the face and hands, the blackish shadow, the sharp white, the brush 
stroke, all speak for Maes—Maes before he began to paint hard, shiny portraits 
for money. The small old woman with the pinched face and hands in the 
National Gallery, London (No. 1675), is by the same painter—Maes.”—New 
Guides to Old Masters, Brussels, p. 51. 


To be compared closely with the Brussels Study of a Dead Woman, 
listed below. 


Stupy or A Drap Woman 
Attributed to Holland School, Catalogue No. 617.* 

“A very good piece of painting in the style of Nicolaes Maes and by that 
painter. Compare it with the so-called Rembrandt in this gallery (No. 368). 
The same painter did both pictures. Notice the similar way in which the brush 
strokes come down on the upper lip to the mouth, also the way the brush follows 
the contours of the face. Notice also the similar treatment of the whites and 
the forced light. Besides, to make identity more sure this is the old woman 
model that Maes painted so many times, praying, spinning, and sleeping. 
Only, now she is dead! The sentiment is exactly his, even if the technique did 
not betray him. ... Since this note was written, both this picture and No. 
368 have been given to Fabritius, to whom they do not belong.” —New Guides 
to Old Masters, Brussels, p. 22. 


In 1922 attributed to Holland School. 


CASSEL: PoRTRAIT OF AN ARCHITECT 
GALLERY Signed Rembrandt 1656, K.K.385, B.383, Hanf.* 

“The shadows are luminous, the brush is a little fumbling about the hair. 
The fur is somewhat tortured, as is also the beard, and there is some soft- 
ness in the modelling. There is an interest shown in such accidental effects as 
the white flesh on the wrist above the line of sun tan and in the protruding veins 
of age in the back of the left hand. The portrait was possibly painted by 
Nicolaes Maes in his middle period. See the resemblance to the portrait of a 
similar old man at The Hague (No. 90) by Maes, and again in a supposed Rem- 
brandt portrait of an old man, in the Carstanjen Collection.” —New Guides to 

Old Masters, Cassel, p. 158. 


107. MAES: SLEEPING WOMAN 108. MAES (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): WOMAN CUTTING 
Brussels Museum HER NAILS 
Metropolitan Museum, New York 


110. MAES (GIVEN TO HOLLAND SCHOOL): A DEAD 
WOMAN 


Brussels Museum 


109. MAES: PRAYING WOMAN 


Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


Puate XXVIII 


111. MAES: PORTRAIT OF WOMAN 112. MAES (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF 
Budapest Museum WOMAN 
National Gallery, London 


113. MAES: PORTRAIT OF WOMAN 114, MAES (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF 
Lehman Collection, Paris OLD WOMAN 


Brussels Museum 


Puate XXIX 


Ome 1 


115. MAES: PORTRAIT OF A MAN 116. MAES (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): AN ARCHITECT 
The Hague Museum Cassel Gallery 


117. MAES: PORTRAIT OF MAN 118. MAES (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF 
Lehman Collection, Paris MAN 
Metropolitan Museum, New York 


PLATE XXX 


| es 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
WANTAGE 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
DEVONSHIRE 
COLLECTION 


LUTSCHENA: 
SPECK VON 
STERNBERG 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
CARSTANJEN 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 131 


The veining in the back of the left hand is repeated in The Hague 
portrait by Maes, and the cramped right hand is seen in several of 
Maes’ pictures. The Carstanjen portrait referred to above is by 
Maes. The signature of “Rembrandt” on this Cassel picture came 
off during a process of cleaning, but not the date. 


PorRTRAIT OF A BURGOMASTER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.499, B.512, Hanf. 


It follows The Hague and Cassel portraits and repeats even such 
small and unimportant things as the veining in the hand. Rather rich 
in color and of a golden-brown hue, but not Rembrandt’s golden brown. 
Smoother, less rasping, less cramped than the Old Woman (No. 1675) 
here in the National Gallery, but by the same hand and mind working 
at a different period. 


PortRAIT OF OLD WomMAN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.499, B.493, Hanf.* 


“There is a certain pinched look in the face and figure that comes not from 
the age of the sitter but from the pinched and tight drawing of a man like 
Nicolaes Maes. This is not only apparent in the cheeks, mouth, and chin, but 
is seen in the telltale hands—the right one larger than the left—with their 
accented red knuckles and joints.” —New Guides to Old Masters, London, p. 105. 


To be compared with the Brussels portrait (given to Rembrandt 
and Levecq), and the Maes Portrait of a Woman, at Budapest, also 
the Card Players in the National Gallery, London. See the note on 
the Card Players under “Pictures by Maes, signed or otherwise authen- 
ticated.”” The knuckles here and in the Card Players are to be closely 
compared for the small mannerism of texture in the skin. 


PortTRAIT OF OLD WomMANn 
Signed Rembrandt 1661, K.K.497, B.492. 

The same model and done in the same manner as the National 
Gallery portrait listed above. Another version in the Glasgow Cor- 
poration Gallery. 


Stupy or Otp Man 
Signed Rembrandt 1652, K.K.370, B.381. 

Done in the early Rembrandtesque period of Maes, about the same 
time as the Woman Cutting Her Nails, in the Metropolitan Museum. 
Notice the high light dotted on the nose in each picture, and the con- 
fused handling of the robes. It is possibly the forerunner of the sev- 
eral portraits posed in this attitude, and listed above. 


Stupy Hrap or OLtp Man 
Signed Rembrandt 1651, K.K.368, B.377. 


Possibly a study for the Devonshire portrait listed above, though 
there is some doubt about it. 


PorTRAIT OF A MAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1645, K.K.339, B.290. 


It follows the Cassel-London portraits. Compare it also with the 
New York (In Trade) portrait of a woman, especially the right hand 
which holds the eye-glasses in both pictures. The black shadows, the 
staring white lights are very characteristic of Maes. Shown at the Old 
Pinacothek, Munich, in 1922. 


132 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


NEW YORK: 
IN TRADE 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Otp Woman Curttinc Her Nats 
Signed Rembrandt 1658, K.K.444, B.477. 


Probably done when Maes was in Rembrandt’s shop and learning 
the broader, darker manner of the shop, which he has here exaggerated. 
The lights are forced and out of value, the shadows again are out of 
value in being too dark. Note the nose how it “jumps” forward. The 
handling is hasty, heavy, ineffective, and the drawing is not correct. 
Note the drawing of the left cheek, the hard, cramped hands, the rest- 
less and almost meaningless robe. The head-dress, the roll of the 
robe, and its breadth across with its confusion of the figure and the 
chair, are all characteristic of Maes, as are also the blackish shadows 
and the reddish coloring. The hands are peculiarly mannered and 
appear in almost all of Maes’ work. Compare them with those in the 
Brussels Maes, The Sleeper, reproduced in Fierens-Gevaert, Musée de 
Bruxelles, p. 118. Compare also the type. This is the Maes model, the 
old woman he painted so many times. Here she is perhaps sixty or 
sixty-five years of age. He can be followed in his work by the age of 
the model. His most robust painting of her was when he was fresh from 
Rembrandt’s studio. 


Portrait oF A MAN 
(Marquand Gift.) Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.507, B.495. 

An excellent portrait, done in the style of the Lehman (Paris) por- 
trait. The blackish shadows, the high whites, the drawing of the eyes 
and eyelids (especially the lower lid), the handling of the brush, the 
type, the pose, the color scheme, all speak for Maes. Compare it closely 
with the Lehman portrait or carry it mentally (or by photograph) into 
the room where hangs the Old Woman Cutting Her Nails. It is the 
same mind and hand at work in all three pictures. 


PortTRAIT OF OLD WoMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1643, K.K.267, B.288. 


It follows the London portraits listed above, and has the same 
drawing of the face, hands, and costume. Attribution tentative. 


Oxtp Woman witH Boox 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.444, B.478, Hanf.* 


The same model as in the Metropolitan Museum, Old Woman Cut- 
ting Her Nails, and done perhaps a little later. Note the head-dress 
and hand. Nevertheless it suggests Van der Pluym. 


“|. . Probably pamted by Nicolaes Maes and Rembrandt never saw it. 
The scheme of sharply forced light, the dark shadows, the red at the sleeves, 
the cramped drawing of the face and hands all point to Maes. It is a very 
good portrait. Indeed, these near-Rembrandts are very good pictures, but the 
point needs continual emphasis that they are not Rembrandts.”—New Guides 
to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. 70. 


Portrait oF OLD WomMAN 
(No. 805.) Signed Rembrandt 1654, K.K.423, B.393, Hanf.* 

The type, drawing (especially in the hands), handling of the brush, 
the whites, the reds, are in the manner of Maes. There is, however, 
some uncertainty about the attribution. There are indications of Van 
der Pluym in the type and drawing. Assignment tentative. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 133 


Two other studies of Rabbis or old Jews (K.K.427) at Petrograd 
might be listed here, for they are probably by Maes, but they should 
be accepted tentatively, until Maes becomes better known. 


PHILADELPHIA: st. Pau 
WIDENER Signed Rembrandt, K.K.384, B.382. 
COLLECTION In the manner and sentiment of Maes, with some of his manner- 


isms of pose, robing, and drawing. It perhaps belongs to his early 
Rembrandt period, when he was doing the Old Woman Cutting Her 
Nails; has the same confused huddling of figure, chair, garments, table, 
the same blackish shadows and angular drawing, the same red coloring 
at the wrists. Assignment tentative. 


RICHMOND: Portrait or A WoMAN 
COOK Signed Rembrandt 1639, K.K.251, B.571. 
COLLECTION The same type, pose, costume, manner, and method as shown in 
the New York In Trade portrait. 
SCHWERIN: Heap or Otp Man 
MUSEUM Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.445, B.571. 


Doubted by Bredius. It is the same model as that in the Devon- 
shire picture, listed above, and done in the same way. The flesh is 
now tan-colored. Freely brushed in the manner of Maes. Forced high 
lights. Notice the nose and the likeness to the Devonshire portrait. 


MAIR OR MAYER, JOHAN ULRICH 
1630 ?-1704? 


Probably a scholar of Rembrandt about 1650. Later he went to Ant- 
werp and was influenced by Jordaens. A signed portrait of himself is in 
Niirnberg, and some half-dozen pictures of biblical themes are given to 
him at Vienna and Augsburg, but they are not too certainly by his hand. 
He is one of the pupils still under shadow. He was spoken of as coming 


from Augsburg. 
MATTHISEN OR MATHISEN, THOMAS 
Fl. 1643-1670? 


A supposed pupil of Rembrandt to whom are given several signed pic- 
tures. 
PICTURES BY MATTHISEN 


SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


COPENHAGEN: Woman at Her Torter 
FREDENSBORG Signed 1643. 
CASTLE This is said to be a copy of a similar picture in the Hermitage attrib- 


uted to Rembrandt (K.K.406, B.400), but the Hermitage picture is 
only a repetition in part of the Buckingham Palace picture (K.K.134, 
B.158). The Copenhagen copy is said to be signed by Matthisen. 


134 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Why should he sign a copy? Is it possible that he painted all three of 
the pictures? Certainly Rembrandt did none of them. 


SCHWERIN: Lapy In Rep 
MUSEUM Signed “‘ Thomas Matthisen” 


MICKER, JAN CHRISTIAENSZ 
1600-1664 


A landscape painter thought to have been influenced by Rembrandt, 
by whom there are perhaps half a dozen pictures. Immerzeel mentions 
him. Weenix is supposed to have been his master. The pictures attrib- 
uted to him are small in manner, and usually show buildings in landscape. 


NARENUS OR NERANUS, A. 
Fl. 1639 


Portrait and history painter, follower and perhaps pupil of Rembrandt 
and J. G. Van Vliet, to whom only one or two pictures are given. In the 
collection of Cardinal Fesch a picture of Pilate Washing His Hands was 
reported as by Narenus, but what has become of the picture is not known. 
Another picture of a young officer, signed 1639, is reported as in the Wacht- 
meister Collection at Vaniis. 


VAN NOORDT, JOANNES 
1620?-? 


A Rembrandt pupil about whose pictures there is some uncertainty, 
though some of them are duly signed. The larger part of those attributed 
to him are in private possession. Those in the Ryks Museum, Amsterdam, 
suggest a possible painter of some of the larger portraits with porcelain 
textures now put down to Maes, Bol, and Ovens. 


PICTURES BY VAN NOORDT 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: Dionys WyYNANDS 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed 1664. 


In black, with red curtains and red sky at back. 


MAGNANIMITY OF SCIPIO 
Signed 1672. . 

The composition is suggestive of the same subject, done by Eeck- 
hout, but this is more formal and classic in the types. 


BRUSSELS: 
MUSEUM Tue TAMBOURINE PLAYER 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 135 


LONDON: Boy with Hawk anv LEASH 
WALLACE 


COLLECTION Boy wita Hawk 


The resemblances between these two Wallace Collection pictures 
and the Brussels picture have been pointed out in the catalogue of the 
Wallace Collection. 


LONDON: 
CHRISTIE’S FIGURES IN LANDSCAPE 
SALE (1914) Signed. 


OVENS, JURRIAEN 
1623-1678 


Ovens was a pupil of Rembrandt, with Paudiss and Hoogstraten, about 
1642. He painted portraits and historical pictures. After 1656 he lived in 
Amsterdam and is said to have worked with Flinck. His latter days were 
spent at the Court of the Duke of Holstein, where he was court painter. 
His early work follows Rembrandt, but, like so many of the Rembrandt 
pupils, he was afterward led away by the rising fame of the Antwerp 
School, with Rubens and Van Dyck as its leaders. Doubtless some of his 
pictures are in the Rembrandt euvre, but there is still a good showing 
under his own name. 


PICTURES BY OVENS 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: GOVERNORS OF HUISZITTENHUIS 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed 1656. 


JAN BERND. SCHAEP 
Signed. 


Four other pictures in the Ryks Museum attributed to Ovens— 
almost all of them pallid in tone of flesh and gray in color. 


BUDAPEST: WoMAN AND THREE CHILDREN 
MUSEUM Signed 1657. 

COPENHAGEN: PortTRAIT OF OLD MAN 
MUSEUM Signed. 


‘In effect like the brilliant Ovens at Rotterdam, with flag, flowers, 
and red macaws for color splendor. A little look of Bol about it. 


SHEPHERDESS 
Signed. 


In straw hat decked with flowers. Small boy with flute at right. 
Nicely done and well drawn. Color good but sky a little hot. 


HAARLEM: Van Goens Famity PicturRE 
HALS MUSEUM = Signed 1650. 


136 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 
LONDON: CoLONEL HUTCHINSON AND FAMILY 
CHRISTIE’S Signed 1659. 
SALE, 1916 
LONDON: WoMAN AND CHILD 
SOTHEBY Signed 1649. 
SALE, 1920 
ROTTERDAM: Famity Group 
BOYMANS Signed 1661. 
SA a oli A large, brilliant, and cleverly Baines picture. It is of the spec- 
(LOANED IN tacular and pretentious kind, but well carried out in high color, exact 
p g 
1922) drawing, and rather elaborate composition. There is much regard for 
textural effects. The woman is in bright red, the man in brownish 
red, the children in magenta, blue, and yellow. The children wear 
wreaths of flowers. There are cupids at the back. The surface is 
smooth and a bit sweet. The woman and man have a Bol look about 
them—in fact, they are much like many of the more pretentious Bols 
and the wine-red portraits by Maes. There is some connection here 
which is just now impossible to establish. No photographs obtainable. 
VIENNA: Girt at WInpow 
HARRACH 
COLLECTION GIRL AND CHICKENS 
Both of these Harrach pictures are reddish in tone and somewhat 
crude in drawing. Attributions questionable. 
PICTURES BY OVENS 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 
AMSTERDAM: Portrait oF Man 
SsIx Attributed to Dou. 
BEEN It has the characteristics of Ovens rather than Dou. Attribution 
tentative. 
BARNARD Famity Group 
CASTLE: (No, 91.) Attributed to the German School. 
eee Probably an Ovens shop piece, with his bright color lacking his color 


quality. 


PAUDISS OR PAUDITZ, CHRISTOPH 
1618-1667 


Paudiss was born in Saxony, and came to Amsterdam to study under 


Rembrandt, probably about 1640. He got from Rembrandt a gray-green 
tone that prevails in many of his pictures, and that with a Rem- 
brandtesque treatment of the surface enabled some of his pictures, no doubt, 
to pass as Rembrandts. He returned to Germany and worked in Dresden 
for the royal family. Later he went to Vienna and worked there for Duke 
Albrecht of Bavaria. He was a painter of considerable ability. He is seen 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 137 


at his best in the galleries at Dresden and Vienna. Apparently there are 
no works by him under the Rembrandt name—at least, they have thus far 
escaped recognition. 


PICTURES BY PAUDISS 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


DRESDEN: Man In Four Cap 
Signed 1654. 


Man 1n Hiaa Hat 
Signed 16—? 


Youna Man In Gray Hat 


VIENNA: Portrait oF MAN 
IMPERIAL Signed 1660. 
GALLERY 
A Bravo 


Signed 1665. 


Three other pictures in the Imperial Gallery are attributed to Paudiss 
and are undoubtedly genuine, but not signed. Besides these, there are 
pictures by Paudiss in private holdings, but it is not worth while listing 
them. He is not an important factor in a rearrangement of Rembrandt- 
esque pictures. 


CHAPTER XII 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 
(CONTINUED) 


PLUYM, CAREL VAN DER 
1630 ?-1672 


AN DER PLUYM came from Leyden, was a relative of and probably 
a pupil of Rembrandt, and a guardian of Rembrandt’s son, Titus. 
He certainly worked in the Rembrandt manner, and almost all of his pic- 
tures are now under Rembrandt’s name. He was probably in the Rem- 
brandt shop about 1650. The only information about him seems to be 
summed up by Mr. J. O. Kronig in an article in the Burlington Magazine, 
vol. XX VI, p. 175, where he is judged to be a painter of small merit. His 
pictures now known to us (and those which are here attributed to him 
and taken over from Rembrandt) seem to justify that opinion. Apparently 
a painter of interiors with groups or single figures, he repeated his composi- 
tion and color a good many times, as though lacking the imagination to 
invent any new scheme or theme. Among his pictures given to Rem- 
brandt there are several Holy Families—each one a variation of the other. 
Perhaps the scarcity of his pictures has enabled us to see only one phase 
of his art, and if we knew his whole output we might change our opinion. 
He was probably an assistant in the Rembrandt shop and almost all of his 
work carried the shop signature. 

At times he draws very well, as in the Munich Holy Family (given to 
Rembrandt), where the figures are accurately drawn, even to the hands; 
but he is usually summary and ineffective in his drawing, produces flat 
surfaces with sharp edges and figures that stand badly or are cramped in 
movement or false in value. His composition is often huddled, lacks in 
space, is false in the relation of the planes, and is remarkable for back- 
grounds that are vague, shadowy, uncertain. In lighting he resorts much 
to artificial light and forces the relations of light and dark in night scenes 
in interiors. At times his brushing is thin and spiritless, and then (perhaps 
at a later period) he swings a loaded brush with a heaping up of pigment 
in the high lights, as in the Berlin Old Man (given to Rembrandt). At 
one period in his career he made much of textural effects, painted in a 
smooth, pretty manner, and used carefully blended tones of sweet color, as 


in The Hague and London temple-interior pictures (given to Rembrandt). 
138 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 139 


He is a somewhat marked painter in his following of others. Besides 
Rembrandt, there are indications of his having been influenced by Eeckhout. 

I list the pictures given to Van der Pluym by Mr. Kronig in his Bur- 
lington article—I having seen only the first two of them. In the Leyden 
Museum there is a Rest in the Flight into Egypt, signed as a Van Groes- 
beck, that is perhaps by a pupil or follower of Van der Pluym. 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 


LEYDEN: 
MUSEUM 


NEW YORK: 
STILLWELL 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
CHRISTIE’S, 
1912 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY VAN DER PLUYM 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD 
Signed. Reproduced in “ Burlington Magazine,” vol. XXVI, p. 176. 

This picture was signed as a Rembrandt, but during a recent 
cleaning the name of Van der Pluym showed under that of Rem- 
brandt. It is, moreover, confirmed as a Van der Pluym by the picture 
at Leyden, with which it is in perfect agreement. Dull yellow in robe, 
short figures, large hands, well lighted and easily handled. This is the 
key picture that unlocks the door to Van der Pluym. 


A PHILOSOPHER 
Signed and dated 1655. 

In this and in the Cook picture the repetition of a curtain hanging 
from a rod is a telltale note that leads to some rather unexpected 
results. The figure is seated at a table, upon which are a book and skull. 
The model appears elsewhere, in the Woman Taken in Adultery, in the 
National Gallery, London. The hat is coxcomb red and flat, the back- 
ground brownish black. There is no light except near the figure. The 
drawing is rather clumsy, but the brushing is facile enough. Signed 
above the curtain-pole, ““Pluym 1655.”’ No photograph obtainable in 
1922, 


Man Reapina Book 
Signed on the book. 


Monry CHANGER 
With monogram and date 1659. 


PICTURES BY VAN DER PLUYM 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT 


Tosit AND WIFE 
Signed Rembrandt 1645, K.K.283, B.249, Hanf. 


To be compared with the Cassel and Cook pictures by Van der 
Pluym for the arch of the roof, the light from the window, the back- 
ground with objects on the wall, the foreground fire with fagots, the 
squat figures, and their drawing, particularly the old man seated in 
the chair. The attitude, the fall of the robe over the knees, the hands, 
the hat, the model himself, are practically the same in both pictures. 
Compare the doing of the bed at right with the doing of the bed at left 
in the Cassel picture. There is no doubt about the same hand at work 
in these pictures. 


140 


BUDAPEST: 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 


MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Man with Rep Cap 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.436, B.389, Hanf.* 


Easily brushed with downward strokes. The beard is fumbled. A 
strong sketch which ten years ago I thought by Eeckhout. It agrees 
exactly with the Old Man with a Stick in the Cook Collection, which 
is there given to Rembrandt. 


JosEPH’s DREAM 
Signed Rembrandt 1645, K.K.282, B.248. 


A sketchy little picture that was probably done by Van der Pluym. 
The assignment, however, is tentative. 


JOSEPH’S DREAM 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.299, B.336. 

The whole spirit and method of it is Van der Pluym, with his types, 
lighting, and drawing. 


Tue Hory Famity 
Signed Rembrandt 1646, K.K.287, B.252, Hanf.* 


The rod and the curtain will be noticed at once because they are 
shown in the Cook and Leyden pictures. They are of the same red 
color and handled in the same way. ‘The pictures agree in the light, the 
background, the figures. Notice that the bend-forward of the servant in 
the Cook picture is also the bend-forward of the Joseph in the Cassel 
picture. The Joseph is shadowy, almost lost in shadow. The figure is 
not true in value. All the backgrounds, in the Van der Pluyms, seem 
shaky and uncertain in light. They have no form or substance. This 
should be followed closely, for it is an important clew. 

“A small picture, rather fine in color and freely, even carelessly, done as 
regards the drawing. It has no earmarks of Rembrandt about it.... In 
manner like the alleged Rembrandt at the Hermitage of the Holy Family (No. 
796) and the picture in the Louvre (Holy Family, No. 2542).”—New Guides to 
Old Masters, Cassel, p. 154. 


ENTOMBMENT OF CHRIST 
Signed Rembrandt 1653, K.K.516, B.129, Hanf.* 


Similar in origin and treatment to the Munich picture of the same 
subject, which see note upon hereafter. 


SIMEON IN THE TEMPLE 
Signed R.H.L. 1631, K.K.23, B.44, Hanf.* 


It is a Van der Pluym subject, treated in a Van der Pluym way as 
regards spot-light illumination, grouping, architecture, types, cos- 
tumes, surface handling, and color—especially the plum-color of the 
high priest’s robe. Compare it with the Woman Taken in Adultery, 
and the Adoration in the National Gallery, London, there given to 
Rembrandt, taking the outstretched hand of the high priest as the 
first clew. All three of the pictures are by the hand of Van der Pluym. 

“With the Lesson in Anatomy hanging near it, done in 1632, when Rem- 
brandt was twenty-six, how is it possible to think he did this small, spotty, and 
rather pretty Simeon in the Temple at an earlier date or at any time whatever. 
In the Lesson in Anatomy, examine the breadth of the masses, the largeness of 
the light-concentrations, the bulk of the color, the absence of any small glitters 
or spots of light, the flatness of the brush stroke; and then look at this prettily 


HAMBURG: 
KUNSTHALLE 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 141 


conceived, dotted, and dabbed picture of Simeon, with its smooth textures, 
rather sweet color, and its shoe-button high lights! Could the same man have 
done the two pictures? If the signature and date are genuine, it is only one 
year earlier, and, besides, the style of it is not early or immature. It is the 
finished style of a man who has perfected a small method.’”—New Guides to 
Old Masters, The Hague, p. 84. 

A copy of the picture, said to be by Poorter, is at Munich, but Poorter 
had nothing whatever to do with it. It is some school or shop replica 
by Van der Pluym. 


PRESENTATION IN TEMPLE 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.6, B.7. 


It follows, in types, costumes, architecture, hands, and the kneeling 
figure at left, the London, Hague, and Paris pictures here listed. The 
handling is fairly vigorous, the Child ill-drawn, the Madonna pretty, 
after Van der Pluym’s type. The blue robe of the Madonna is repainted 
and probably her face has been retouched. There is a shade of doubt 
about this attribution. 


ADORATION OF SHEPHERDS 
Signed Rembrandt 1646, K.K.285, B.316. 


One of a series of pictures done by Van der Pluym, perhaps in con- 
nection with the Passion Series at Munich—this being a version of the 
Adoration theme there shown. Both pictures have the same spot-light 
illumination, poor drawing, weak construction, and faulty composition 
that run through all this painter’s work. His foregrounds and back- 
grounds are mere pretenses, but his grouping in the central light, his 
color, and his textures are not so open to criticism. The faces in profile 
are marked by square jaws and noses and an absence of depth through. 

The man with the lantern here is the same model as the Van der 
Pluym Philosopher at Leyden, the arched rafters at top repeat a man- 
nered arrangement of the pattern well marked with this painter, the 
handling is precisely that of the little Supper at Emmaus in the Louvre 
by Van der Pluym, but given to Rembrandt. It is astonishing that all 
these faulty little pictures should be accepted as by so powerful and 
certain a technician as Rembrandt. 


THe WomMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY 
Signed Rembrandt 1644, K.K.279, B.247.* 


There is literary tradition about this picture, which is flatly con- 
tradicted by the picture itself. There is not a touch of Rembrandt in 
it or about it. It is too weak, not only for Rembrandt, but for almost 
every one of his pupils, except Van der Pluym. It fits Van der Pluym 
exactly. It is his spot-light effect, his squat figures, bright colors, and 
rather good textures. It is also his bad drawing, his lack of construc- 
tion, his false planes, and his shadowy and indefinite background. At 
first this picture impresses one as minutely and exactly done—drawn 
like a Dou or a Poorter—but examination of the figures, the architec- 
ture, the golden altar, shows that they have a glib surface but no 
underneath drawing. Examine the golden altar for the meaning of 
the dots and dabs—the meaning as constructive drawing—and its 
weakness will be revealed at once. The background, with the altar at 
right and the indefinite space at left, follows the false-valued arrange- 
ment in the Simeon picture at The Hague. The picture belongs in the 
same class with the Simeon and was painted by the same hand. 


142 


LONDON: 
BUCKINGHAM 
PALACE 


LONDON: 
BEIT 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
SABIN 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
HIRSCH 
COLLECTION 


MOSCOW: 
TSCHUGIN 
COLLECTION 


MUNICH: 
OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Small analogies with other Van der Pluym pictures appear almost 
everywhere. The man at the extreme right, behind the man with a 
red cloak, is the Philosopher of the signed Van der Pluym at Leyden. 
He wears the same shaped red cap and has the same face and beard. 
The man behind the culprit whose head shows over the hand of the 
armored man with a staff is the model of the aged Tobit, by Van der 
Pluym, and the model of the chief character in the signed Van der 
Pluym, the Labourers in the Vineyard of the Cook Collection. The 
Man in Armor appears in the Munich Entombment, which I have 
listed as a Van der Pluym. The man to the left of the Christ, with a 
stick in his hand, is the model of the Joseph in the Holy Family at 
Munich, also given to Van der Pluym. The hand of Christ in this Lon- 
don picture appears frequently in the Van der Pluyms herein listed. 
Analogies of color, texture, handling, drawing, composition are every- 
where in evidence. 


ADORATION OF Maai 
Signed Rembrandt 1657, K.K.387, B.A06. 

The types, the color, the grouping, drawing, and shadowy back- 
ground all point to Van der Pluym as the painter. 


Tue Trrpute Money 
Signed Rembrandt 1629, K.K.11. 

With a vague architectural background, dark foreground, and a 
central spotlight. The types, costumes, grouping, and drawing of Van 
der Pluym are again very obvious. 


MorTHER AND CHILD 
Signed 1640, K.K.Supp. 44. 

Not only the subject but the lighting and the drawing—especially 
the drawing of the hands—proclaim Van der Pluym. The sentiment 
also is his. Still, there may be a doubt entertained here. The assign- 
ment is tentative. 


Heap or O_p Man 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.436, B.587. 


The same head as in the Berlin picture of the Man with Red Cap, 
and probably done by the same hand. 


Tosit AND WIFE 
Signed R.H.L. 1626, K.K.Supp. 2. 


Probably an early attempt at this subject by Van der Pluym. It is 
more carefully, precisely, sharply drawn than the other examples, and, 
in consequence, hard and ugly. The resemblances to the other exam- 
ples of Van der Pluym are quite apparent. It is the same sentiment, 
types, composition, drawing, lighting. The chair, the seated figure, 
the drawing of the robe over the knees, the harsh hands, the fire on the 
floor are all repetitions of other works. Even the vine at the window 
echoes that in the.signed Cook picture of the Labourers in the Vineyard. 


Hoty Faminy 
Signed Rembrandt 1631, K.K.22, B.38, Hanf. 


A variation of the same theme as at Cassel, Petrograd, and Paris, 
with Joseph now almost in the central plane, yet with the bend-for- 


120. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
HOLY FAMILY 
Cassel Gallery 


119. VAN DER PLUYM: LABOURERS IN VINEYARD 
Cook Collection, Richmond 


121. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 122. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
HOLY FAMILY HOLY FAMILY 
Hermitage, Petrograd Old Pinacothek, Munich 


PLATE XXXI 


123. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 124. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
CIRCUMCISION OLD RABBI 
Brunswick Museum Budapest Museum 


125. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 126. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY SIMEON IN TEMPLE 
National Gallery, London The Hague Museum 


Puate XXXII 


128. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): TOBIT 
AND WIFE 
Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


127. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
TOBIT AND WIFE 
Tsehugin Collection, Moscow 


129. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 130. VAN DER PLUYM (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
MAN WITH RED CAP JOSEPH’S DREAM 
Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin . Budapest Museum 


Pratt XXXIII 


NEW YORK: 
FRICK 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
KAHN 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 143 


ward in the figure of the Cassel and Petrograd pictures. He is appar- 
ently also the same model. Notice the shadowy background with the 
tools hanging on the wall, as in the Petrograd picture. The fagots on 
the floor, the cradle, and the light, are once more the same as in the 
other pictures by Van der Pluym. The color is washed out into dull 
reds and blues, the handling is rather smooth, the drawing a bit cramped 
but effective. 


ADORATION OF SHEPHERDS 
Signed doubtfully Rembrandt 1646, K.K.284, B.315. 

The same composition as in the Adoration in the National Gallery, 
London. Both pictures show artificial light effects with shadowy back- 
grounds, summary drawing, and equally summary handling. 


ENTOMBMENT OF CHRIST 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.165, B.128. 


This belongs to a series of small pictures done by Van der Pluym, 
probably for the Passion Series, while in the Rembrandt shop or under 
the guidance or influence of Rembrandt. With the Van der Pluym 
characteristics and studio properties, even to the lighted lantern. An- 
other version in the Dresden Gallery. 


O_tp Woman witH Book 1n Lap 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.331, B.392. 


It is placed on the canvas like the Sabin picture and agrees in feel- 
ing, sentiment, drawing with all the Van der Pluyms. The color is 
that of the Munich Holy Family (K.K.22). The model is probably 
the same as in the Berlin picture (K.K.283). The skirt is similar to 
that in the Munich picture (K.K.22), and the hands repeat the drawing 
in all the Van der Pluyms. ‘This is one of the strongest of his pictures. 
It is so strong that one may have doubts about Van der Pluym as 
its author. The assignment is tentative. 


JUPITER AND PHILEMON 
Signed Rembrandt 1658, K.K.388, B.407. 

The arrangement of the roof timbers to frame the picture follows 
the Cassel, Cook, and Berlin pictures. The double lighting, the shad- 
owy background, the vague figures, the drawing are all confirmatory 
of an attribution to Van der Pluym. He was a mannered and appar- 
ently limited painter, but he sometimes varied his scheme and sitting, 
as here shown. Assignment tentative. 


Hoty Famity 
Signed Rembrandt, 1640, K.K.223, B.242.* 

This is probably a later attempt at the subject of the Holy Family. 
The light, the background, the tools on the wall, the cradle and Child, 
with the light and fagots on the floor, are repetitions, but the Madonna 
is prettier, and the Joseph stronger than in the other Holy Families. 
This led me at first to think this picture by Adriaen Van Ostade. There 
is still a shade of doubt about it, but it may be given to Van der Pluym 
tentatively. 


CuHRIsTt AT EMMAUS 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.463, B.519. 
With the same shadowy room and figures as seen in other pictures 


144 


PARIS: 
JACQUEMART- 
ANDRE 
MUSEUM 


PHILADELPHIA: 
WIDENER 
COLLECTION 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


by Van der Pluym. The light is dimmer than usual, the curtain-rod 
is now turned into a railing with a coat thrown over it. Note the 
apostle at the right, how like is his bend of the head to the Joseph in 
the Madonna pictures. Is not this apostle the same model as the ser- 
vant in the Labourers in the Vineyard, of the Cook Collection? The 
figure at back, at right, is vague; the figure in foreground at left is 
arranged and posed like the woman in the Cook Collection Tobit. No 
construction under the figures, but they are rather easily painted, the 
high lights being somewhat loaded. Compare the picture with the 
large Supper at Emmaus in the Louvre, given to Rembrandt. It 
seems impossible that the same hand could have painted both. 


SUPPER AT EMMAUS 
Signed G. D. (Gerard Dou). Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.10, B.9. 

It has the look of a weak, cheap forgery, and is almost too bad 
to put down to Van der Pluym as his work. But the tone, type, draw- 
ing, and handling seem to go along with some of the poorer examples of 
his work. It has little or no artistic value. I list it tentatively and 
hesitatingly. 


THe CIRCUMCISION 
Signed Rembrandt 1661, K.K.465, B.518. 


This is another version of the Circumcision in the Cook Collection 
at Richmond. Both of them show the handling of Van der Pluym, 
though under them may be the inspiration of Rembrandt. 


Hoty Famity 
Signed Rembrandt 1645, K.K.281 B.251. 

The Madonna and Child are nearly the same, and the drawing, light, 
background are identical in treatment with the Cassel Holy Family. 
Note the shadowy false-valued Joseph in the background—another 
repetition in pose and treatment of the Cassel picture. The tools on 
the wall, the litter on the floor should be borne in mind. They appear 
also in the Munich Holy Family and elsewhere in Van der Pluym’s 
pictures. 

‘There are in the Louvre a small interior (No. 3542), and in the Cassel Gal- 
lery another interior (No. 240) that suggest the painter of this Hermitage pic- 
ture. Rembrandt never did any of them, though his name is used in connec- 
tion with all of them. He had little sympathy with anything that was merely 
pretty or catchy or sentimental. ‘The Madonna here (as in the other examples 
referred to) is too fair, the motive too slight, the play too superficial. ... It 
is not impossible that Adriaen Van Ostade could have done it, though it must 
be confessed that it is different from what we usually associate with him and 
his work. That it is not by Rembrandt is almost a certainty.” —New Guides 
to Old Masters, Petrograd, p. 69. 


Oxtp Man wirtH STIck 
Attributed to Rembrandt. 

It is the Van der Pluym squat figure with large hands—the same 
model, method, and pose as the Man with a Red Cap in the Berlin 
Gallery (given to Rembrandt). 


THE CIRCUMCISION 
(No. 311.) Altributed to Dutch School. 
A large Van der Pluym, with a gold-robed figure in the foreground, 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 145 


a Madonna in red with white head-dress, a ladder at back, and a shad- 
owy background. The figures have sharp profiles. The mannerisms 
of Van der Pluym are here quite marked. Said to be a copy after the 
Widener (Philadelphia) picture, but it is not a copy. It is an original 
Van der Pluym. The Cook Collection contains no less than five ex- 
amples of his work. Practically all that is known of Van der Pluym 
has come from these pictures in the Cook Collection. 


Hoty Faminy 
Attributed to Dutch School. 


A small and not very important picture, which probably belongs to 
the Van der Pluym e@uvre. Assignment tentative. 


Tosit AND WIFE 
Signed Rembrandt 1650, K.K.297, B.331. 


It is apparently another attempt at the subject of Tobit by Van 
der Pluym. The man has the pose, type, and drawing of the Berlin 
Tobit, and the Richmond picture of the Labourers in the Vineyard, 
while the woman has the hands of the Cassel and Hermitage Madonnas. 
ne light and interior are better handled than usual with Van der 

uym. 


If the thirty or more Van der Pluyms here listed are put side by side in 
photographic illustration, they will, once more, reveal a distinct if some- 
what limited individuality—an individuality different from any other of 
the Rembrandt School. The pictures agree perfectly with each other, but 
they will not fit in with any of the other groups of pictures here given. 
It is as impossible to think of Backer or Bol or Drost doing them as Rem- 
brandt. Compare (even in the illustrations in this volume) the Flincks or 
Horsts and the Van der Pluyms, and notice how wide apart they stand. 


POORTER, WILLEM DE 
Fl. 1608 ?-1645 


Poorter was a painter of historical and biblical subjects, and was prob- 
ably a pupil of Rembrandt as early as 1630. He learned the early and 
rather precise method of Rembrandt, and seems to have carried it into 
biblical themes with exaggeration of precision, much ornamentation, and 
Oriental detail. He is remarkable in his few well-known pictures for his 
huge interior architecture, his finely robed groups, and his rather dramatic 
compositions. It was pretentious, but weak and empty art. The por- 
traits and heads that may be or have been attributed to him also have 
little mental stamina about them. They are pretty and incline toward 
sweetness. Some of his still-life subjects seem better fitted to his method 
than his figure pieces. 


146 


AMSTERDAM: 


RYKS MUSEUM 


AUGSBURG: 
MUSEUM 


BARNARD 

CASTLE: 
BOWES 
MUSEUM 

BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


COPENHAGEN: 


MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PICTURES BY POORTER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


SOLOMON SACRIFICING TO IDOLS 
Signed, Hanf.* 

“In the painter’s pretty mood and rather weak and sweet in color as in 
handling. Poorter was not always so insipid as this; occasionally he did force- 
ful things that have been assigned to Rembrandt.”—New Guides to Old Mas- 
ters, Amsterdam, p. 38. 


Man anp Woman IN CostTUME 
Signed. 
With a display of still-life. Not important. 


Stitt Lire 
Signed 1655. 


TAKING OF SAMSON 
Signed. 
An ordinary Poorter, but carefully done, and with good color effect. 


Stitt Lire 
Signed. 


A small picture, showing armor, skull, crown, with blue curtain. 
Carefully and exactly done for textural effect. 


THE CIRCUMCISION 
Signed, Hanf. 

Early, well-painted, good in drawing and color. A typical Poorter 
that may be used as a criterion of his work. 


Mercury AND PROSERPINA 
Signed. 


The Mercury is smooth and rather glassy in surface. A white 
table-cloth is the central spot of light. The figures are a bit pretty, if 
correctly drawn. Mercury is in a gold robe, Proserpina in blue. Not 
an important example, but characteristic. 


ALLEGORY 
Signed 1643. 

The allegory concerns Peace, and the manner of its doing is that of 
the Mercury and Proserpina above. 


EstHer BrerorE AHASUERUS 
Signed 1645. 


CHRIST AND THE ADULTERESS 
Signed.* 

Pretty in raspberry-reds, yellows, and faded greens. Large archi- 
tecture at back. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 147 


PRESENTATION OF CHRIST IN TEMPLE* 

Said to be a copy after Rembrandt’s picture in The Hague, but the 
picture at The Hague is by Van der Pluym, and this Dresden picture 
is more than likely a shop or school replica, with Rembrandt or Poorter 
having nothing to do with either picture. 


LONDON: ALLEGORICAL SUBJECT 
NATIONAL Signed. 
GALLERY 
VIENNA: THE QUEEN OF SHEBA 
LIECHTEN- Signed. 
STEIN 
GALLERY 


QUAST, PIETER JANSZ 
1606-1647 


A genre painter of small, rather quaint, sometimes grotesque figures in 
tavern interiors. His work has usually been handed over to Brouwer and 
Adriaen van Ostade, though possibly some of it is still in the Rembrandt 
ewuvre. He is said to have been a follower, perhaps a pupil of Rembrandt. 
He also did some portraits and biblical scenes. A number of pictures are 
still under his own name. They are smooth in velvets, gay in costume, 
often aristocratic in types. There are many single figures of beggars and 
other grotesque characters in etchings by Quast to be seen in the British 
Museum. 


PICTURES BY QUAST 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: THE SURGEON 
RYKS MUSEUM  Signed.* 
“The man with the red-brown cap is quite attractive in the strong patches 
of shadow thrown across his brown coat. By a follower of Brouwer.’”—New 
Guides to Old Masters, Amsterdam, p. 40. 


THe Carp PLAYERS 


BRUNSWICK: Two Brca@ars 
MUSEUM Two small pictures with two figures in each. In the style of 
Brouwer or Teniers, but not so well done as the work of those painters. 
THE HAGUE: THE Carp PLAYERS 
MUSEUM “In the style of Brouwer, and with fair results as regards types and colors, 
though it lacks everywhere in drawing.”—New Guides to Old Masters, The 
Hague, p. 83. 


The picture formerly was catalogued as a Brouwer. 


TRIUMPH OF FOLLY 
Signed. 


148 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


HAMBURG: SOLDIERS IN A GUARD HovusE 
KUNSTHALLE Signed. 


Aristocratic in types, smooth in handling, pretty in color. 


LEIPSIC: CAVALIERS 
MUSEUM Signed P. Q. 
Like a Duck or a Dirk Hals in bright colors and fashionable types. 
LONDON: CAVALIER AND LaDy 
NATIONAL Signed with initials. 
Ee ES The figure at right in style of Brouwer; the others are types similar 
to those of Codde or Duck. 
VIENNA: Four PEASANTS 
IMPERIAL Signed 1633. 
MUSEUM 


RENESSE, CONSTANTIN A 
1626-1680 


Renesse was a late scholar of Rembrandt and probably in the Rem- 
brandt shop about 1649 or 1650. He was painter, engraver, and etcher, 
and there are a large number of etchings still under his name. All of his 
pictures have disappeared. Several works are claimed for him, but they 
are not certainly by him. One of them is in the Czernin Collection, Vienna 
—once given to Rembrandt, and also to Vermeer of Delft. His style or 
manner of painting remains practically unknown. A knowledge of it 
could be perhaps arrived at through his etchings, but they require critical 
examination and reassignment at the start. 


ROGHMAN, ROELAND 
1597-1686 


Roghman was a landscape painter, an etcher, and an engraver who 
lived long and was a friend of Hercules Seghers and Rembrandt. His 
pictures are scarce and are quite unknown to the average art lover. His 
landscapes are of a sad or lonely nature, rather dark in shadows, with 
slashes of light across the foreground and strong, clouded skies. Some of 
them have passed for Rembrandts. A dozen are probably still existent 
under his own name. His pen drawings and etchings are numerous, and 
there are about forty engravings by him. 


PICTURES BY ROGHMAN 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: THREE LANDSCAPES 
RYKS MUSEUM Two of them signed. 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


COPENHAGEN: 


MUSEUM 


DARMSTADT: 
MUSEUM 


LEIPSIC : 
MUSEUM 


MONTPELLIER: 


MUSEUM 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 149 


Mountain LANDSCAPE 
Signed. 


A tumbled and tossed country, with slashes of yellow light broken 
by dark clumps of trees. Shadowed foreground, mountain at left, 
strong clouded sky. A picture of considerable force. 


Two Mountain LANDSCAPES 
Signed, Hanf. 

One of these landscapes (No. 227) was signed as a Rembrandt and 
passed for such for a time. Both of them are a little perfunctory, fol- 
lowing the Berlin picture given above. 


LANDSCAPE 
Signed. 


LANDSCAPE WITH BriIpGE 
In the style of Roghman, if wanting in sharp shadows and rather 
monotonous in color. Not an important example. 


LANDSCAPE 
Signed. 
A Dutch landscape, dark sky and foreground, figure in wagon at left. 


LANDSCAPE 
Signed. 
The composition is that of The Mill (given to Rembrandt) in reverse. 


LANDSCAPE 

With dark foreground and central slash of bright light, strong back- 
ground and sky. It is almost of a piece with the so-called Rembrandt 
landscapes. 


PICTURES BY ROGHMAN 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 
LANDSCAPE WITH ToBIAS AND ANGEL 


Attributed in 1922 to Brouwer, formerly to Rembrandt. 


The landscape is possibly by Roghman, as a comparison with the 
Roghman landscape in the Louvre will suggest. Assignment tentative. 


ROTTERMOND OR RODTERMONDT, PIETER 


Fl. 1640 


Sometimes written Aegidius Paul Rottermondt. Painter, etcher, and 
engraver, probably a pupil of Rembrandt. In 1639 he lived in The Hague 
and in 1643 was possibly in London. There are a number of his prints 
catalogued, but none of his pictures are known to exist. 


ROUSSEAU, JACQUES DE 
1638-—? 


A Rembrandt follower, and possibly a pupil, for whose identity we 
have to thank Doctor Bredius. There is little known about him. 


150 


ROTTERDAM: 
BOYMANS 
MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PICTURES BY ROUSSEAU 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


REMBRANDT’S FaTHER 
Signed with initials 1635. 

A rather hard and yellowish bust portrait of a model with an heroic 
stare. It reminds one somewhat of Salomon Koninck or Jan Lievens at 
his worst. The ground is light gray, the drawing is stringy, the light 
and shade not strongly marked. 


SANTVOORT, DIRCK DIRCKSZ, VAN 
1610-1680 


A portrait and history painter who probably studied under Rembrandt 
and followed his methods. He had a son baptized and given Rembrandt’s 
name in 1648, and still another son four years later, named for Rembrandt 
again, which would seem to imply that Rembrandt was his friend at least. 
He is said to have copied the master, which is probably no more than the 
usual story of those who would hand over his pictures to Rembrandt. 
The following are still under his own name. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


DARMSTADT: 
MUSEUM 


HAARLEM: 
FRANS HALS 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY SANTVOORT 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


REGENTS OF WoORKHOUSES 
Signed 1638. 


GOVERNORS OF SERGE HALL 
Signed 1643. 


FREDERICK Dircksz ALEWYN AND WIFE 
Signed 1640. 


Martinus ALEWYN AS A SHEPHERD 
Signed 1644. 


CLARA ALEWYN AS A SHEPHERDESS 


Portrait oF A LittLeE GIRL 
Signed. 

In a green dress. It has a look and is a reminder of certain chil- 
dren’s portraits done by Aelbert Cuyp. Rather minutely but well 
done. 


PortTRAIT oF A Lapy 
(Loaned by an Austrian collector summer of 1922.) 


With long hair, large collar, and black dress. Very good, if exact in 
drawing. Brownish in flesh notes. 


ao 


131. OVENS: WOMAN AND CHILD 132. POORTER: SOLOMON OFFERING TO IDOLS 


Hanover Museum Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


134. ROGHMAN (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): TOBIAS 
AND ANGEL 
National Gallery, London 


133. ROGHMAN: LANDSCAPE 
Louvre, Paris 


Puate XXXIV 


136. VICTORS (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): SENDING AWAY 
OF HAGAR 
135. VICTORS: JACOB’S BLESSING In trade, London 
Budapest Museum 


1388. DE WET: ADORATION OF SHEPHERDS 
Kunsthalle, Hamburg 


187. SANTVOORT: SHEPHERDESS 
Boymans Museum, Rotterdam 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 151 


THE HAGUE: PortraIT or YOouNG WoMAN 
MUSEUM (Loaned from Stuers Collection summer of 1922.) 
Standing at full length, holding white glove in left hand. Gray 
ground and tiled floor. Rather hard, but probably genuine. 

GLASGOW: PortTRAIT OF YOUNG GIRL 

CORPORATION If questioned at all, it must be on the ground that it is too good for 

GALLERY Santvoort. 
LONDON: GIRL WITH A FINCH 

NATIONAL Signed 1630. 

GALLERY 
PARIS: CHRIST AT EMMAUS 

LOUVRE Signed 1633. 

It is a good picture, though a little too sleek and smooth in the 
surface. The heads are overwrought. In the style of Poorter, but 
firmer in drawing, sharper in high lights, and perhaps deeper in color. 

PARIS: GIRL IN WHITE 
SCHLOSS Signed 1638. 
COLLECTION 

ROTTERDAM: A Youne FLuTE PLAYER 
MUSEUM Signed 1632. 


A SHEPHERDESS 


Both of these pictures are small, bright in color, easily done, and 
marked by rather small and sharp high lights, especially on such fea- 
tures as finger-nails. They agree with the Supper at Emmaus by 
Santvoort in the Louvre. 


A number of other pictures, chiefly portraits, in private possession need 
not be entered here. 


SYBILLA OR SIBILLA, GYSBERT 
Fl. 1650 


A painter of history recorded as having done in 1652 a Regent piece for 


the Town Hall of Weesp, where he was burgomaster. 


He is supposed to 


have followed Rembrandt, but there is little definite knowledge about his 


life or his art. 


TERLEE, VAN 
1636 ?-1687 


Houbraken mentions Terlee with Drost and Poorter as pupils of Rem- 


brandt, but he has been confused with other painters in later years, and 
even his name is in doubt. There are no pictures in existence by Terlee 
unless we accept the Rape of Europa, at one time in the Kaiser-Friedrich 
Museum at Berlin, as by his hand. Houbraken mentions such a picture 
as painted by Terlee—‘ Europa met hare by-en omzwevende Maagden.” 


152 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


THIER, OR DETHIER, HENDRIK DE 
1615 ?-? 


A painter and engraver of the Rembrandt School, and probably a pupil 
of Rembrandt about 1633. Several pictures in private possession or in 
auction sales have appeared with his signature said to be upon them, but 
there is nothing in public galleries and nothing positively authenticated. 


VAN DYCK, ABRAHAM 
1635 ?-1672 


Doctor Bredius, in the Burlington Magazine, vol. X XI, p. 169, gives a 
résumé of his researches into the life of this painter. That is the most 
extended knowledge we have of Abraham Van Dyck. He was probably a 
pupil of Rembrandt. Doctor Bredius thinks he did the portrait of an 
Old Woman at the Brussels Museum, given to Rembrandt (No. 368 of the 
Catalogue), but I cannot follow him that far. Van Dyck’s pictures are 
few and in private possession, with the following exceptions: 


PICTURES BY VAN DYCK 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


OLDENBURG: OLtp MAN 
MUSEUM Signed. 

STOCKHOLM: THREE FIGURES 
MUSEUM Signed. 


PICTURES BY VAN DYCK 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


ELBERFELD: Otp Man 
HILGER- Signed A. V. Dyck 1655. Altributed to Rembrandt. 
ZILLESSEN The picture is described and given to Abraham Van Dyck by 


COLLECTION Doctor Bredius in the Burlington Magazine, vol. XXI, p. 169. A repro- 
duction accompanies the article. 


VERDOEL, ADRIAEN 
1620 ?-1695 ? 


A painter and poet mentioned by Houbraken as a scholar of Rem- 
brandt. He was probably with Rembrandt about 1645. In 1649 he was a 
member of the Haarlem Guild. He painted historical pictures, according 
to Houbraken, but they have disappeared. A few genre pictures are under 
his name. 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 153 


PICTURES BY VERDOEL 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


BERLIN: MusicaLt Party 
HOLLANDER Signed. 
SALE, 1899 
BRUSSELS: Curist HEALING THE PossESSED 


JEHAY SALE, 
1904 


Signed. 


LEIPSIC: AN OPERATION 
MUSEUM Signed. 
In style of Brouwer, but blacker and coarser. 
MUNICH: SOLOMON AND QUEEN OF SHEBA 


HELBIG SALE, 
1907 


SCHWERIN: 
MUSEUM 


Signed. 
The photograph shows a Rembrandtesque picture. 


Pies In Sty 
(Nos. 1061, 1062.) Signed. 

Two pictures of pigs that have excellent painter’s quality. Ostade 
or Brouwer never did anything better. The color is rich brown and 
flesh-reds, the drawing exactly right without being finical, the handling 
easy and certain. 


The Munich, Brussels, and Berlin pictures I know only from the photo- 


graphs in Sir Robert Witt’s Collection, London. 


tatively. 


I list the pictures ten- 


VICTORS OR FICTORS, JAN 
1620-1676 


Victors was one of the most facile and industrious of Rembrandt’s 


pupils, who, considering his industry, has not many pictures left to his 
account. He is often confused with Bol and Eeckhout in his compositions, 
though he is smoother in surfaces, less subtle in light and shade, and per- 
haps frailer in drawing than either of them. He painted history, genre, 
and portraits, the genre being somewhat crude, the history large in scale, 
select in type, and bleached in light and color, the portraits rather com- 
monplace in view and method. He was probably in the Rembrandt shop 
before 1640. Later, that is, about 1670, he is supposed to have gone to 


the Indies. Little is known of his life. 
PICTURES BY VICTORS 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 
AMSTERDAM: JOSEPH INTERPRETING THE DREAM 


RYKS MUSEUM Signed 1648. 


154 


ANTWERP: 
MUSEUM 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


BRUNSWICK: 
MUSEUM 


BUDAPEST: 
MUSEUM 


COPENHAGEN: 


MUSEUM 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


Toe Pork ButTcHER 
Signed 1648. 


THe DENTIST 
Signed 1654. 


THE GREEN-GROCER’S SHOP 
Signed 1654. 


None of these pictures by Victors in the Ryks Museum gives an 
adequate idea of the painter. He was more of an historical painter 
than here appears. 


Weppine Frast 
Signed. 


HANNAH AND SAMUEL 
Signed 1645. 

With restless robes and bright colors, smoothly and easily done. 
The hands knotty in the knuckles and red. A typical Victors. 


ESTHER AND HAMAN 
Signed 1642. 


Tue TAKING OF SAMSON 
Signed 1653. 


The Esther is a good Victors in color and drawing. The Samson is 
shopwork and a bit theatrical. 


SAMUEL ANOINTING DavipD 
Signed 1643. 


A CHARLATAN 
Signed. 


JACOB BLESSING JOSEPH’S CHILDREN* 


PortTRAIT OF LADY 
Signed 1657. 


It looks like a washed-out Backer, with red in the cheeks and in the 
knuckles of the hands. A simple and direct effect, well drawn and 
easily handled. 


Davip AND SOLOMON 
Signed 1642. 

The old man is in bed and the other stands at the side. The colors 
in costumes are dull-blue, with gold patterns, bedcover red and drawn 
in rolls and folds. The picture is a little overdone in color, but is right 
enough in drawing and brushwork. 


Finpina or Mosss 
Signed 1653. 


DORDRECHT: 
MUSEUM 


FRANKFORT: 
STAEDEL 
INSTITUTE 

HAARLEM: 

HALS MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 

MUNICH: 

OLD 
PINACOTHEK 


OLDENBURG: 
AUGUSTEUM 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


LONDON: 
IN TRADE 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 155 


THe Cup in BENJAMIN’s Sack 
Signed. 


Both of these works are washed-out, thin shop pieces of small merit. 


PrRoPHETESS ANNA 
(No. 44.) Signed 1643. 
With yellow and red head-dress and fur collar. 


Boaz 
Signed. 


PorTRAIT OF APPELMAN 
Signed 1661. 
Smooth stuffs, blackish shadows, red table-cloth. A good portrait. 


VILLAGE COBBLER 
Signed. 


Tosias 
Signed 1651. 
A fairly representative Victors, though weak in the background. 


Tue Boy Cyrus 
Signed. 


In the Victors manner, with much velvet, gold braid, and pretty 
textures, but badly drawn and thinly painted. It is probably a Victors 
shop piece. 


PoRTRAIT OF GIRL 
Signed 1640.* 


MAGNANIMITY OF SCIPIO 
Signed 1640.* 


PICTURES BY VICTORS 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 
SenpDING Away OF HAGAR 


Signed Rembrandt, K.K.304, B.334. 


To be compared with the Budapest picture of Jacob Blessing Joseph’s 
Children, especially for the boy’s head—the back of it—and the striped 
drapery. The whole picture is so peculiarly like Victors that one is 
astonished it should ever have been given to Rembrandt. 


VAN VLIET, JAN GEORG 
1610—? 


An engraver, and probably also a painter, of Rembrandt’s School, 


working under Rembrandt at Leyden. 
him, but they are doubtful. 


Two pictures are attributed to 
His work could be found more readily among 


156 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


the Rembrandt etchings, for it is more than probable that he did plates 
afterward attributed to Rembrandt. 


DE WET, JACOB WILLEMZ 
1610 ?-1671 


History painter and probably a pupil of Rembrandt, working in Rem- 
brandt’s style, with small figures in interiors and backgrounds of columns, 
halls, and stairs. The groups are usually dressed in picturesque costumes 
with turbans and cloaks and gold-braid effects. He kept a note-book in 
which many of his pictures were recorded. They were chiefly biblical 
subjects. He was a painter of good standing and the master of a number 
of pupils. Almost all of his works have disappeared. A few, still under 
his name, might pass for early Rembrandts. A brother, doing landscapes, 
is also said to have been a Rembrandt pupil and follower. 


PICTURES BY DE WET 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: Curist BLEssinG LitTtLE CHILDREN 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed. 


Not an important example. 


BRUNSWICK: Curist AmMone Doctors 
MUSEUM Signed 1635. 


Reddish-brown tone, with gray architecture. Small figures with 
wrinkled faces. 


Burnine or Troy 
Signed. 
Too hot in color to be decorative, but fairly well done. 


BUDAPEST: THe CALLING OF PETER 
MUSEUM Signed. 

DARMSTADT: AWAKENING OF LAZARUS 
GALLERY Signed 1633. 


Yellow in tone, with pale-blue and raspberry-red costumes. Not a 
good example of De Wet. 


HAMBURG: ADORATION OF SHEPHERDS 
KUNSTHALLE Not signed. 
MUNICH: ABRAHAM SENDING Away HaaGar 
OLD Not signed. f 
PINACOTHEK With characteristic yellow sky, diagonal composition, figures on 


dark ground at left. 


Other pictures attributed to De Wet at Copenhagen, Petrograd, and 
Stockholm. 


ASCHAFFEN- 
BURG: 
MUSEUM 


DULWICH: 
GALLERY 


RICHMOND: 
COOK 
COLLECTION 


PICTURES BY PUPILS 157 


PICTURES BY DE WET 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


RESURRECTION 
Attributed to Rembrandt. 

This is a small and unimportant version of the Resurrection in the 
Passion Series at Munich. It was perhaps done by De Wet and has 
his golden color and angel wings, as in the Hamburg picture of the 
Adoration of the Shepherds. It is of slight artistic value. Assignment 
tentative. 


Jacos’s DREAM 
Attributed to the Dutch School. 

A sketchy affair of no great value, with a golden circle in the sky 
from which angels are descending. It is perhaps by De Wet, who 
painted this arrangement several times, notably in the Hamburg picture. 


APPEARANCE TO SHEPHERDS 
Attributed to Wouvermans. 

Again the yellow circle in the sky—a De Wet studio effect. Attri- 
bution tentative. 


WILLMAN OR WILLEMANS, MICHAEL LEOPOLD 


1629-1706 


Willman was a pupil of his father and (in Holland) of Backer, probably 
entering the Rembrandt shop about 1650. He became court painter for 
one or more German princes. -About 1656 he lived in Leubus. Some of 
his pictures are in the churches of Leubus, Grussau, and elsewhere. Of his 
pictures in galleries there are only a few. 


DRESDEN: 
GALLERY 


HERMANNSTADT, 
MUSEUM 


SCHWERIN: 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY WILLMAN 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


PortTRAIT OF A Boy 

A free sketch with warm brown and red basing. After the style of 
the pictures of nymphs with ideal heads given to his master, Backer. 
In the store-room. 


PARADISE 
Signed 1668. 


EUROPA 
Signed 1679. 

Half French in spirit, graceful, quite charming. Very little of Hol- 
land about either the figure or the bull, and nothing of Rembrandt. 
The sky is now hot. Handled with a sweeping surface effect. No 
kneading, thumbing, or ploughing. Color scheme in bright reds, yellow, 
and white. 


WULFHAGEN, FRANZ 
1620 ?-1678 


A little-known German scholar of Rembrandt whose pictures have 
completely disappeared. 


CHAPTER XIII 
PICTURES BY UNKNOWN PUPILS 


NDER this caption I have placed in groups certain pictures in the 

Rembrandt wuvre that are not by Rembrandt or any identified pupil 
in the school. They are works by pupils or followers whose names have 
either been forgotten or no longer have meaning in connection with their 
works. There are a dozen or more pupils who have nothing to their 
names, and it would be easy enough to attribute to them these pictures, 
but there has been too much history written in that way. Instead of 
inventing a name (as Mr. Berenson his Amico di Sandro) or picking one 
out of a worm-eaten register (as Mr. Weale his Isenbrant), I prefer merely 
a series of numbers. The pictures are given in groups, each group suggest- 
ing the personality of one painter. If the name of the painter shall be 
established hereafter, it can be easily attached to the group, and if other 
pictures belonging to the group are found they, too, can be added to the 
list from time to time. 


UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP I 


There seem few if any analogies between the three pictures here listed 
and others of the Rembrandt euvre. It may be that they have been done 
by some pupil known to us, but the links that connect them with his 
known works have been lost. Certain pictures (the Centurion Cornelius 
picture in the Wallace Collection, for example) seem to defy association or 
grouping and stand by themselves. This is to be regretted, for some of the 
pictures (those in this group especially) are of a high quality. The Cen- 
turion Cornelius picture may possibly belong in this group, but for the 
present I assign it to Simon de Vlieger. Those who do not follow me in 
the association of these pictures as by one painter should remember that 
they are all accepted by the Rembrandt authorities as being by one painter 
—Rembrandt. But they are nearer to Eeckhout than to Rembrandt. 


THE HAGUE: Davip BEFrorE SAUL 
MUSEUM Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.470, B.529. 
(BREDIUS) This picture is striking and powerful. It is slashingly done in bright 


colors, but not accurately slashed in a Rembrandt sense. There are 
large dabs and long streaks that are often ineffectual, but the general 
result is forceful. The points of the crown at the top, the type, the 
eye and hand are clews to two or three other pictures, probably by the 
same painter. 

158 


PICTURES BY UNKNOWN PUPILS 159 


MANNHEIM: Kine Davip 
LANZ Signed Rembrandt 1651, K.K.Supp. 63. 
COLLECTION 


The model and the crown seem the same as in The Hague Museum 
Saul and David, listed above. The same model and crown are seen in 
the Adoration of Kings in Buckingham Palace, given to Rembrandt 
(K.K.387), but which I have put down to Van der Pluym. I can see 
nothing of Van der Pluym in The Hague picture. 


PETROGRAD: JOSEPH’S BLoopy Coat 
HERMITAGE Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.300, B.340. 
Compare the small boy here with the David in The Hague picture, 
the hands of the Jacob with those of the Saul, the grooves in the archi- 
tecture with those in the harp, the composition and light of the pictures. 


ee 


. It belongs somewhere in the school and was possibly painted by one 
of those pupils of Rembrandt who left a name in the municipal records but not 
a single picture upon any gallery wall.”—New Guides to Old Masters, Petrograd, 
p. 81. 


UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP II 


The pictures in this group are put together with some misgivings. The 
painter of the Manoah in the Dresden Gallery was a man of great ability. 
The picture (as regards the two figures) is superb. I tried to fit it in the 
Rembrandt group again and again, but without success. It is too black 
in the shadows, too hard in the contours. It seems to agree better with 
the two portraits I have placed with it, yet here again is some disagreement 
in quality. They are not the equal of the Manoah, and yet have a some- 
thing about them that says they were done by the painter of the Manoah 
in a careless or less serious mood. 


DRESDEN: MANoAn’s OFFERING 
GALLERY Signed Rembrandt 1641, K.K.225, B.243, Hanf.* 


The two kneeling figures are wonderful, but the composition as a 
whole is not happy. The light is uncertain, and the poorly drawn angel 
and the fire hardly belong to the rest of the picture. The color is bril- 
liant in reds, reddish-browns, and golds. The woman in profile is like 
the Cassel Saskia, but the face is harder, flatter, darker in shadow. It 
may possibly belong to the Rembrandt shop, with Rembrandt’s final 
touches, but it does not look like a worked-over picture. I prefer to 
think it by an unidentified pupil. 


Outp Man witH CANE 
Not signed, K.K.358, B.296. 


The over-robe is blue-black, the under-vest reddish-brown. Hand 
drawn a little square, face well done, beard marked in high light, shadows 
blackish. It is possibly the same model as the Manoah in this gallery. 
The handling is very like in both pictures. The association with the 
Manoah is tentative. 


160 


NEW YORK: 


METROPOLITAN 


MUSEUM 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PortTRAIT OF A MAN 
Signed 1644, K.K.273, B.271. 

The figure looks as though it might fit in the Night Watch. It has 
the movement and air of belonging there, but it is thinner, harder, more 
brittle, darker than the figures of the Night Watch. The association 
with the Dresden portrait and the Manoah seems a matter of feeling 
rather than demonstration. Assignment tentative. 


UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP III 


The pictures listed below are all of the same spirit, type, and technique. 
In mind, feeling, and handling they show the same painter. Who that 
painter I cannot say. There is a strain of coarseness, almost brutality, 
about him, not unmixed with strength, that seems to differentiate him 
from the other painters in the school. 


BERLIN: 
SCHWABACH 
COLLECTION 


BERLIN: 
RIDDER 
COLLECTION 


CHICAGO: 
INSTITUTE 


COLOGNE: 
OPPENHEIM 
COLLECTION 


EDINBURGH: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


LONDON: 
FLEISCHMAN 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


PARIS: 
BONNAT 
COLLECTION 


SENLIS: 
PONTALBA 
COLLECTION 


Youne GIRL 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.406, B.373. 


Girt at WInpow 
Reproduced in Bode, ‘‘ Ridder Collection.” 
Probably by the same hand that did the Chicago picture listed below. 


Youne Girt at WINDOW 
Signed Rembrandt 1645, K.K.323, B.301. 
Another version with Durand-Ruel in Paris. 


Girw’s HEAD 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.324, B.374. 


Woman In Bep 
Signed Rembrandt 1657, K.K.408, B.435. 
Curtain red, shadows luminous, drawing good, brushed, not kneaded. 


THE Cook 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.439, B.465. 


SUSANNA AT Batu 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.288, B.324. 


HEAD OF SUSANNA 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.288, B.323. 

Both of these Paris pictures are probably coarse copies (not studies) 
of the Eeckhout Berlin picture (K.K.289) by some unknown pupil or 
follower or admirer of Eeckhout. They are done with force and ease 
and are not copyist copies, but those of a competent painter. 


Giru’s Hrap 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.324, B.588. 

This Senlis and also the Cologne picture are in the coarse strain of 
the Paris pictures, being coarse in their doing, as well as their seeing, 
but done with considerable strength. 


——  =te” 


139. PUPIL GROUP I (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): DAVID 
AND SAUL 
Bredius Collection, The Hague 


140. PUPIL GROUP I (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): JOSEPH’S 
COAT 


Hermitage, Petrograd 


141. PUPIL GROUP II (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): MANOAH’S 
OFFERING 


Dresden Gallery 


142. PUPIL GROUP II (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): MAN 
WITH STICK 


Dresden Gallery 


Prats XXXVI 


1438. PUPIL GROUP II (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 144. PUPIL GROUP III (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
PORTRAIT OF GIRL PORTRAIT OF GIRL 


Oppenheim Collection, Cologne Pontalba Collection, Senlis 


145. PUPIL GROUP III (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 146. PUPIL GROUP III (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
PORTRAIT OF GIRL WOMAN IN BED 
Art Institute, Chicago National Gallery, Edinburgh 


PuaTe XXXVII 


a 


PICTURES BY UNKNOWN PUPILS 161 
UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP IV 


The four pictures here associated all show the same model, and are 
done in the same way, by the same hand. It is possible that they are near 
to Aert de Gelder—perhaps emanated from his shop, or were done by some 
now unknown follower. They are not very important. 


COPENHAGEN: A Kwnicut or MAtLta 

MUSEUM Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 97. 
PETROGRAD: PortrRAIt oF MAN 

HERMITAGE Signed Rembrandt 1661, K.K.496, B.510. 


The same model appears in De Gelder’s Budapest picture of Esther 
and Mordecai, but this portrait appears not by De Gelder. 


SWEDEN: A FALcoNER 
PRIVATE Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 97a. 
POSSESSION 

ZURICH: A RasBsI 
ESCHER Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 61. 
COLLECTION 


UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP V 


The pictures placed under Group V are by some pupil or follower of 
Rembrandt, who can be traced to some extent by his repetitions in com- 
position. He composes by creating a dark foreground, a sharply lighted 
middle-distance, and a surrounding dark background. It is little more 
than a variation of the Rembrandt School method of focussing light through 
surrounding planes of dark, but the painter seems to have been so pleased 
with this composition that he puts it forth again and again. Interiors are 
his chief settings, but occasionally he does a night landscape with an arti- 
ficial light effect. What his versatility I do not know. I am able to trace 
him thus far merely in his phase of light. He is apparently related to Van 
der Pluym, but not identical with him. Jan Lievens also produced similar 
light effects, but I cannot identify Lievens with the list of pictures that 
follows: 


BERLIN: CHRIST AND WoMAN OF SAMARIA 
KAISER- Signed doubtfully Rembrandt 1655, K.K.378, B.408. 
FRIEDRICH An effect of light in the middle distance emphasized by a dark bar- 
MUSEUM rier in foreground. Here the barrier is a wall instead of a table with a 


heavy cloth, as in pictures that follow. Note the veining and streaking 
of light on the wall done by dragging white paint with the brush. It 
is loaded with pigments and broadly dragged with warm color, inclining 
to hotness. Assignment in this group tentative. 


162 


COPENHAGEN: 
MUSEUM 


DOWNTON 
CASTLE: 
KNIGHT 
COLLECTION 


GAUSSIG: 
RIAUCOUR 
COLLECTION 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


LONDON: 
NATIONAL 
GALLERY 


MAINZ: 
BUSCH 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


REMBRANDT’S FATHER 
Signed R.H.L., K.K.41, B.542. 


This is the model seen in the National Gallery Philosopher of this 
group, with the sharp contrast of light and dark thrown across the face. 
Notice the resemblance in caps. The dragging of white on the collar 
is as in other pictures by this same hand. It is ploughed in the coat 
lapel and shoulder, the mouth is askew, and there are other resem- 
blances in this unknown painter to Lievens, whose pupil or follower he 
may have been. Golden color on a gray ground. 


Hoty Faminy 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.280, B.250. 

The same effect of light in the middle distance, with dark foreground 
and dragged veinings of light on wall at back, at right. A little in the 
manner of Van der Pluym, and possibly by him. The attribution tenta- 
tive. 


REMBRANDT’S MOTHER 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 11. 


Fuicut Into Eaypt 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.161, B.132.* 

The composition is the reverse of the National Gallery picture 
which follows, the lines running from right to left. The dark mass in 
the foreground, with the silhouette of Joseph, repeated also. Notice 
the veining of light on the edge of the wall at right. It is repeated in 
the National Gallery picture. 


Tue PHILOSOPHER 
Signed Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 8. Reproduced in “ Burlington Magazine,” No- 

vember, 1917. 

Mr. C. J. Holmes has an article on this picture in the Burlington 
Magazine, November, 1917, giving the date as 1632. But neither date 
nor signature (it is signed on a beam at right) is of any great impor- 
tance. The upper space here is very well given, and the effect of hight 
and atmosphere is excellent. It is almost a black-and-white. Note 
the form of the dark table-cloth. Also the line of the composition from 
left to right, following the shadow on the lighted wall at back. 


REMBRANDT’S FATHER 
Signed R.H.L. 1629, K.K.Supp. 9. 


A replica of the Copenhagen picture above, but darker in key. 


UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP VI 


Just why so many landscapes put down to Rembrandt escaped being 
signed one hardly knows. Was it perhaps that landscapes (then as for 
two hundred years thereafter) were not considered marketable, and signing 
them was merely an added waste of energy, or was it that they were done 
outside of the Rembrandt shop and that he never saw them? Another 
apparent contradiction—none of these landscapes has much analogy with 


147. PUPIL GROUP IV (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 148. PUPIL GROUP IV (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
A RABBI OF MAN 
Escher Collection, Zurich : Hermitage, Petrograd 


149. PUPIL GROUP V (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): A 150. PUPIL GROUP V (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
PHILOSOPHER REST IN THE FLIGHT 
National Gallery, London The Hague Museum 


Prats XXXVIII 


152. PUPIL GROUP VI (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): LANDSCAPE 
Brunswick Museum 


151. PUPIL GROUP VI (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): LANDSCAPE 


Cassel Gallery 


é 154. PUPIL GROUP VII (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
153. PUPIL GROUP VII (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): LANDSCAPE WITH BRIDGE 


LANDSCAPE WITH BRIDGE 


Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 
Oldenburg Gallery 


Puate XXXIX 


b) e > 
pt ag 5 
* 
P a=» “Le hs 


PICTURES BY UNKNOWN PUPILS 163 


the various landscapes in the etchings attributed to Rembrandt. The 
paintings show mountain, waterfall, castle, and storm-cloud effects, but the 
etchings show low-lying meadows, huts, distant towns. 

There were a number of painters outside of Rembrandt’s shop that 
could have done the landscapes, as, for instance, Hercules Seghers, Ver- 
meer of Haarlem, Molyn, Van Goyen, or even the versatile Aelbert 
Cuyp. All of these painters occasionally forced the notes of light and 
dark and produced such “strong”? landscapes as are now under Rem- 
brandt’s name. It is not impossible that one painter did all the landscapes 
given here in Groups VI and VII. But who the painter? The reasons for 
assigning them to Rembrandt are not weighty. In almost all of the land- 
scapes in these groups there is bad drawing, disguised by startling lighting. 
Even the small figures are usually atrocious in their drawing. That of 
itself might eliminate Rembrandt. So far as we actually know his work, 
he is an almost infallible draftsman and brushman. 

With no exact knowledge as to the painters of these landscapes, I put 
them together in two groups tentatively. 


BOSTON: LANDSCAPE WITH OBELISK 
GARDNER Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.231, B.230. 
COLLECTION 

BRUNSWICK: LANDSCAPE 
GALLERY Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.232, B.231. 


With storm clouds, light golden-brown ground, olive-green foliage, 
light central. 


CASSEL: LANDSCAPE WITH RUINS 
GALLERY Signed Rembrandt, K.K.312, B.343, Hanf.* 
CRACOW: LANDSCAPE 
CZARTORYSKI Signed Rembrandt, K.K.233, B.229. 
COLLECTION 
DRESDEN: Mountain LANDSCAPE 
GALLERY (No. 1575.) Attributed to Rembrandt school. 
EINDHOVEN: LanpscaPE witH Two BripGEs 
PHILLIPS Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 43. 
COLLECTION 
FLORENCE: LANDSCAPE 
PITTI Attributed to Rembrandt. Attributed by Doctor Bode to Hercules Seghers, and 
GALLERY reproduced in his “Great Masters in Dutch and Flemish Painting,” p. 120. 
LONDON: LANDSCAPE 
WALLACE Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K. 235, B.233. 
COLLECTION Probably by the same hand that did the Mill (Widener Collection, 


Philadelphia). 


164 


LONDON: 
IN TRADE 


PARIS: 
SCHLOSS 
COLLECTION 


PHILADELPHIA: 
WIDENER 
COLLECTION 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


LANDSCAPE wITH BAPTISM 
Signed Rembrandt 1636, K.K.Supp. 37. 


LANDSCAPE WITH SWANS 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.311, B.574. 


Toe Miu 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.313, B.345. 


Much controversy has centered about this picture, some writers de- 
claring it by Hercules Seghers. There is no doubt about its being a 
fine picture and quite worthy perhaps of Rembrandt. But there is no 
exact knowledge about Rembrandt’s landscape work. For the present 
the painter of The Mill may be considered problematical. Later re- 
search will perhaps establish his identity. 


UNKNOWN PUPIL—GROUP VII 


The painter of this group seems less elaborate in composition, more 
forced in high lights, more spotty and sketchy, more loaded in surface than 
the painter of the preceding group. Van Goyen at times did pictures like 
these, but the bulk of work now under his name is much smoother and 


weaker. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


MADRID: 
ALBA 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
NORTHBROOK 
COLLECTION 


OLDENBURG: 
GALLERY 


SCHLOSS: 
EHRINGERFELD 


THE Storm Bripce 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.232, B.232, Hanf.* 

Just such a landscape as this is in the New York Historical Society 
Gallery under the name of Van Goyen, and another is in the Six Col- 
lection of the Ryks Museum again as a Van Goyen. 


LANDSCAPE WITH BRIDGES 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.237, B.573. 


LANDSCAPE 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.236, B.235. 


LANDSCAPE WITH BRIDGE 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.236, B.234. 


Wooprep LANDSCAPE 
Signed R, K.K.234, B.572- 


CHAPTER XIV 
OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT 


HIS list is made up of painters outside of the Rembrandt circle, and 
yet near enough to it to have some of their pictures given to Rem- 
brandt. There is no need for going into their work deeply or cataloguing 
their authenticated pictures for reference. It is sufficient to say that cer- 
tain so-called Rembrandt pictures belong to Vermeer of Delft, or the School 
of Frans Hals, without analyzing either master. A goal will be reached if 
I succeed in suggesting the confines of the Rembrandt School. At present 
the @uwvre contains a smattering of outside schools, and these pictures should 
be eliminated. 

It will be remembered that the light-and-dark of Rembrandt was not of 
his origin, though he brought it to its northern perfection. The forced 
contrast of blacks and whites came to Amsterdam from Naples—came 
from the School of Caravaggio. Many of the Dutch painters before Rem- 
brandt’s day took up with it. As a result some of these forerunners and 
contemporaries of Rembrandt painted pictures dark in the shadows, sharp 
in the lights, free and even coarse in the brushwork—pictures that in the 
course of time and under commercial pressure have gravitated to Rem- 
brandt. I shall put down the names of these painters with other imitators 
of Rembrandt, even though I do not now find any work of theirs in the 
Rembrandt ewvre that can be positively identified. 


BRAMER, LEONARD 
1596-1674 


Bramer was eleven years older than Rembrandt, and probably formed 
a manner of his own before Rembrandt came upon the scene. That he 
may, later on, have been led off by the great success of Rembrandt is pos- 
sible. But at no time had he Rembrandt’s exact knowledge of shadow or 
his sense of clarity and luminosity. Bramer’s lights are too often mere 
whitewash put on the surface of flesh or cloth or furniture, and his shadows 
are, again, often pot-black lacking in luminosity. It would seem impossi- 
ble that his pictures should pass for Rembrandts, and in the public galleries 
I have no positive knowledge of any picture attributed to Rembrandt that 
is by Bramer. In private possession I recall a number of Bramers doing 


service as Rembrandts, but it is not necessary to name them here. 
165 


166 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


CUYP, BENJAMIN GERRITSZ 
1612-1652 


Every student of the Rembrandt school has to reckon with the Cuyps 
—Benjamin Gerritsz Cuyp in particular—because every one of them occa- 
sionally produced pictures that have a Rembrandtesque look. This is put 
down to Rembrandt influence, but whether rightly or not we have now no 
means of knowing. All the painters of the time followed the Dutch tradi- 
tion of the time. Rembrandt was only a part of the tradition. Benjamin 
Cuyp’s pictures are usually a little too grotesque for Rembrandt, yet that 
very feature has resulted in some of them coming under Rembrandt’s 
name. Some of the study heads in the Rembrandt euvre appear to be 
from his hand. In color he is warm in yellows, and in light resembles at 
times work by De Wet. He frequently shows distinct color quality, and 
at other times he is powerful. The Entombment in the Ryks Museum is 
distinctly a note of power, with much skill in its revelation. 


DIETRICH, CHRISTIAN WILHELM ERNST 
1712-1774 


Dietrich was a late German imitator of Rembrandt, whose works have 
sometimes deceived collectors and gallery directors. Several pictures in 
public galleries put down to Rembrandt are possibly by this imitator, but 
it is hardly worth while proposing new attributions merely on possibilities. 
Many of Dietrich’s pictures are in the Dresden Gallery. 


GOYEN, JAN VAN 
1596-1656 


Van Goyen was one of the best-known landscapists of the Dutch School, 
painting the Holland country, coast, and canals with much truth and force. 
He painted a great many pictures, many of them of merely commercial 
value and done hastily, thinly, weakly; but in his earlier work, or in his 
more sketchy effects done for his own pleasure, he did things of vital force. 
Some of these latter pictures are driven hard in their high lights, and show 
violent sunbursts upon trees—the white paint being loaded upon foliage, 
grass, or rocks. It is pictures of this kind, whether by Van Goyen or 
others, that have been appropriated to Rembrandt. Their violence seems 
to have been thought characteristic of Rembrandt, but such thinking is 
not borne out by the figure pictures of Rembrandt. He is not violent. 
Salomon Ruysdael worked in Van Goyen’s manner, and some of his pic- 


155. ELSHEIMER: MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE 156. LASTMAN: ODYSSEUS AND NAUSICAA 
Brunswick Museum Brunswick Museum 


157. BRAMER: SIMEON IN THE TEMPLE 158. MOYAERT: CALLING OF MATTHEW 
Brunswick Museum Brunswick Museum 


Puate XL 


PRESS 


159. SEGHERS: HOLLAND LANDSCAPE 
Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin 


160. CROME SCHOOL (GIVEN TO SEGHERS): LANDSCAPE 
National Gallery, Edinburgh 


162. MOLYN: LANDSCAPE 
Brunswick Museum 


161, VAN GOYEN: LANDSCAPE WITH TWO TREES 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


Puate XLI 


hd 


in. t Aree Rte es 
ae ce 


an, ad 
i co. 
— , 


OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT 


167 


tures are also possibly mixed up with those of Rembrandt and his pupils. 
A Van Goyen landscape, by way of illustrating the method of the painter, 
is reproduced herein. 


HALS, FRANS 
1580-1666 


Certainly there is little likeness between the pictures of Hals and Rem- 
brandt—so little that one is the more surprised to find an occasional picture 


of the school of Hals passing under the name of Rembrandt. 


I shall list 


only one or two pictures by Hals with which the so-called Rembrandts may 


be compared. 


AMSTERDAM: 
RYKS MUSEUM 


CRONBERG: 
RIDDER 
COLLECTION 

PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


BERLIN: 
HULDSCHINSKY 
COLLECTION 


NEW YORK: 
METROPOLITAN 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY HALS 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Portrait OF Maritce Vooat 
(No. 1088.) Signed 1639. Reproduced in Moes, “Frans Hals,” p. 58. 


Wire or M. MiIppELHovEN, 1636 
Reproduced in Moes, ‘‘Frans Hals,” p. 26. 


THe BoHEMIAN 
Reproduced in Moes, “Frans Hals,” p. 39. 


PICTURES BY HALS 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


WeEEPING WoMAN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.Supp. 73. 


It belongs to the school of Frans Hals. Compare with the Hals 
Bohemian in the Louvre. The hand alone would confirm its origin in 
the Hals school, but also the type, handling, feeling are all from Haarlem. 


PortRAIT OF O_p Lapy SEATED 
Signed Rembrandt 1635, K.K.209, B.224. 


To be compared with the portraits listed above and reproduced in 
Moes, Frans Hals. 


KEYSER, THOMAS DE 
1596-1667 


A well-known portrait-painter who held high rank before the coming of 


Rembrandt. 


forming the early style of Rembrandt. 
some of his pictures have been given to Rembrandt. 


It is very likely that his pictures had something to do with 


It is not surprising therefore that 
I list only a few of 


De Keyser’s pictures, and these merely for the purpose of comparison with 
the Keyser-Rembrandts. 


168 


BERLIN: 
KAISER- 
FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 
(SCHLICHTING 
COLLECTION) 


BOSTON: 
GARDNER 
MUSEUM 


CASSEL: 
GALLERY 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PICTURES BY DE KEYSER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


Famity Group 
(No. 750.) 

Seven figures about a table. The figures are in black and are short 
in stature, as are the interior portrait groups of De Keyser elsewhere. 


FatHEeR AND Son, MoTHER AND DAUGHTER 
(No. 750, B. C.) Hanf.* 

“These portraits at one time probably formed the wings of an altar-piece. 
They are good pieces of portraiture and excellent in both color and brushwork. 
The fine heads in No. 750 B are practically in a class with the Rembrandts. 
What types they are! What dignity and force they possess!’”—New Guides 
to Old Masters, Berlin, p. 58. 


PortrRAIT OF MAN STANDING 
(No. 222.) Hanf.* 


PORTRAIT OF A SCHOLAR 
(No. 77.) Signed 1631. Reproduced Hanf. 43.* 

“A dignified and determined-looking Dutchman, well placed in an interior, 
seated and restful but perhaps a little too conscious. The background has 
been hurt and does not keep its place.” —New Guides to Old Masters, The Hague, 
p. 76. 


PoRTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN 
(No. 689.) Signed 1636.* 

“, . The man is a strong type, with a powerful head and good hands. 
There is a sturdy quality about the picture almost worthy of Rembrandt.”— 
New Guides to Old Masters, The Hague, p. 76. 


PortTRAIT OF MAN 

An excellent example of De Keyser, and showing the kind of portrait 
that Rembrandt as a young man greatly admired and paid the compli- 
ment of imitation. 


PICTURES BY DE KEYSER 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


Portrait oF MAN AND WIFE 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.89, B.99. 

To be compared with The Hague De Keyser Portrait of a Scholar. 
Assignment tentative. 


Portrait oF Hermansz Kru 
Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.94, B.98, Hanf.* 

To be compared with the Portrait of a Man Standing, by Thomas 
de Keyser, in this same gallery. It is not necessary to argue the case. 
Even a putting of the photographs together will carry conviction. 
They are both by De Keyser, the so-called Rembrandt being the poorer 
picture. 


163. FRANS HALS: PORTRAIT OF LADY 164. HALS SCHOOL (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam PORTRAIT OF LADY 
Metropolitan Museum, New York 


165. HALS: THE BOHEMIAN 166. HALS SCHOOL (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
Louvre, Paris ADULTERESS BEFORE CHRIST 


Huldschinsky Collection, Berlin 


Prats XLII 


167. KEYSER: PORTRAIT OF MAN 168. KEYSER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Cassel Gallery OF KRUL 


Cassel Gallery 


mattis 


169. KEYSER: PORTRAIT OF SCHOLAR 170. KEYSER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
The Hague Museum OF MARRIED COUPLE 


Gardner Collection, Boston 


Puate XLII 


OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT _ 169 


“A sneering and somewhat disagreeable personality in black on a gray 
ground, done easily enough, but not an inspired or inspiring piece of work. It 
looks a bit perfunctory. The flesh is hot, the left hand and arm badly placed, 
the background formal. A large picture, but with little pronounced color.’’ 
—New Guides to Old Masters, Cassel, p. 157. 


PortTrRAIT OF UNKNOWN MAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1639, K.K.253, B.254, Hanf.* 


“A full-length supposed to have been done in 1639, with a yellow-brown 
flush about the background. The man is short, red-faced, and wholly unin- 
teresting save for the manner of his painting. The light is more or less diffused 
through the room and the man is standing against a pilaster. He rests well 
on his feet. The black clothes are carefully done—better perhaps than the 
face and hair, which leave us unmoved.”—New Guides to Old Masters, Cassel, 
p. 154. 


To be compared with The Hague portrait by De Keyser (Hanf. 43). 
Done in the same way as the Krul portrait. 


PARIS: PortTrRAIT oF Martin Day 
ROTHSCHILD Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.196, B.107. 
COLLECTION 


It may be compared with The Hague Portrait of a Scholar by De 
Keyser, also with the portraits at one time with Sedelmeyer in Paris 
and reproduced in his Three Hundred Paintings, plates 76 and 77. The 
pose, the fling-back of the head, the feet and legs, the hand, the cos- 
tume, are all indicative of De Keyser. 


Portrait OF MACHTELD VAN Doorn 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.197, B.108. 


Companion-piece to the Day portrait above and in the same style 
and spirit. 


LASTMAN, PIETER 
1583-1633 


Lastman was Rembrandt’s master and possibly some features of Rem- 
brandt’s art that are now called “Rembrandtesque” were originally derived 
from Lastman. Yet Lievens and Eeckhout apparently got more from 
Lastman than Rembrandt. Poorter and Salomon Koninck also took forms 
of composition from him. There are not more than twenty pictures by 
Lastman known at the present time. They are not inspiring, nor do they 
give any hint of the coming Rembrandt, except in the most general way. 
The best examples are at Brunswick. The so-called Rembrandt land- 
scapes, however, were inspired in measure by Lastman, and, perhaps, more 
directly by the hard landscapes of Elsheimer, to whom every one at that 
time paid allegiance. The Mill landscape of the Widener Collection and 
landscapes of the type of that in the Cassel Gallery apparently emanated 
from Elsheimer. Roghman and Esselens were also beholden to him. 


170 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


MOEYAERT, NICOLAES CORNELISZ 
1600 ?-1655 


A painter who worked in Italy under the influence of Elsheimer and 
Lastman. Some of the small and rather pretty boys’ heads in velvet caps 
in the Rembrandt ewvre, as also some of the small nude figures may be by 
Moeyaert, but there is no great certainty about this. There are examples 
of his work in the museums at Amsterdam, Budapest, and elsewhere. 


PYNAS, JAN SIMONSZ 
1580-1631 


Pynas in 1605 went to Rome with Lastman and was there a follower of 
Elsheimer. Rembrandt is thought to have worked in his shop later on, 
when in Amsterdam. The pictures of Pynas follow the exaggerated light 
and dark of Caravaggio, and Rembrandt may have been influenced by 
him. Possibly some of the Pynas pictures are now under Rembrandt’s 
name in public galleries, but I can find nothing that can be attributed to 
him with reasonable certainty. 


SEGHERS OR SEGERS, HERCULES 
1589-1645 


Doctor Bode thinks that Seghers was really the inspiration of Rem- 
brandt in landscape work, which is not impossible. The Rembrandt in- 
ventory at the time of his bankruptcy records several landscapes by Seghers 
in his possession. They have now disappeared. Doctor Bode says that 
his landscapes are “‘sometimes ascribed to Rembrandt, sometimes to Ruys- 
dael, Van Goyen, and other artists.” The Berlin picture (No. 808A), given 
now to Seghers, is an illustration of this. It had upon it the false signature 
of Van Goyen over that of Seghers. The Desolate Valley of the National 
Gallery, Edinburgh, is another noteworthy illustration. This landscape 
was assigned some years ago to Rembrandt by Doctor Bode, and then, at a 
later date, given by the same authority to Hercules Seghers. It is signed, 
in red paint, on a rock, “R f 1651.” But nothing in the picture speaks 
for either Rembrandt or Seghers. It is an English landscape, not Dutch, 
and was done by John Crome or some one very close to him. The han- 
dling has no likeness in the Dutch school. It seems washed in, floated in 
like water-color, rather than brushed or kneaded. The bare hills are Eng- 
lish or Scotch, and the rain-cloud about the mountain heads has only a 
superficial resemblance to Seghers’ thunder-clouds. Even the small figures 
at the left are English, not Dutch. 


OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT © 171 


The Mill of the Widener Collection is perhaps the most celebrated of 
the Rembrandt landscapes in controversy. Some think it by Seghers 
rather than Rembrandt, but there is no proof or even probability accom- 
panying the attribution. The known landscapes by Seghers are usually 
low-lying Dutch scenes and the Mill belongs with the mountain land- 
scapes, such as those in the Cassel and Brunswick galleries. 

Seghers was an etcher as well as a painter of landscapes. A large 
number of his etchings are in existence. The Amsterdam Museum has 
fifty or more. He was a forerunner whose pictures are just now in 
process of reassignment. They are very valuable—especially if under 
Rembrandt’s name. That the painter could not sell them in his lifetime 
and died in poverty is merely one of the common ironies of fate recorded in 
art history. 


VERMEER OF DELFT, JAN 
1632-1675 


Vermeer’s pictures have been sought for everywhere—except in the 
Rembrandt euvre. Perhaps it is not strange that he should appear there, 
since he was of the Rembrandt school once removed. He was a pupil 
of Carel Fabritius, who in turn was a pupil of Rembrandt. It is by an 
understanding of Fabritius that we shall possibly arrive at a better under- 
standing of Vermeer. I frankly confess to my inability to follow the 
Vermeer writers and authorities or agree with the present arrangement of 
his pictures. I seem to see several painters in the pictures put under Ver- 
meer’s name. ‘The small pictures given to him contain things supremely 
fine and things supremely thin, small, and hard. Such pictures as the 
Girl Reading, in the Dresden Gallery, are beyond criticism. The Young 
Woman Reading a Letter, and the Cook, at Amsterdam, the Lady with 
a Pearl Necklace, at Berlin, the Girl at a Window, of the Marquand Col- 
lection, Metropolitan Museum, New York, are in the same class of excel- 
lence. There are perhaps ten or a dozen pictures by this hand. I shall 
call their painter for convenience herein Vermeer No. 1. There are, how- 
ever, as many more pictures that superficially look to be in the class, but 
they are brittle, cardboard affairs with false high lights, airless rooms, and 
color that has no quality. Two pictures, each showing a Young Woman 
at the Virginals, in the National Gallery, London; The Letter, at Amster- 
dam; the Allegorical Subject at The Hague, are the illustrations of this 
latter class. I have called their painter, in my New Guides, a pseudo- 
Vermeer, meaning by that that he may be an imitator—some one like 
Verkolje or Ochtervelt—or possibly Vermeer himself in decline and grown 


172 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


hard in manner. These small pictures form the first group given to Ver- 
meer, and [ shall consider them as done by a Vermeer No. 1 and a pseudo- 
Vermeer. 

But there are other and contradictory pictures given to Vermeer. The 
Diana at The Hague Museum does not agree with any Vermeer picture of 
any group. It was not done by Vermeer but by Jacob Van Loo. Similar 
Diana pictures—similar in subject, type, drawing, grouping—are in the 
Berlin and Brunswick galleries, under Van Loo’s name. There is still a 
third Diana picture by Van Loo in one of the European galleries, that I 
cannot at this time recall. None of the three under Van Loo’s name are 
so brilliant in color as the Diana at The Hague, which possibly accounts 
for The Hague picture not being associated with them. To insist upon 
putting The Hague Diana in the Vermeer list is like the insistence that the 
Concert in the Louvre should be in the Giorgione list—something that does 
not bring conviction but rather dissent. 

The Procuress at Dresden is not by the same hand as The Hague Diana 
or the small interiors with girls at windows. It is by a painter we may 
call Vermeer No. 2. Besides the Procuress at Dresden (Van Zype, p. 50), this 
No. 2 did the Young Girl at Brussels (Van Zype, p. 34) and the Old Woman 
attributed to Nicolaes-Maes in the Johnson Collection, Philadelphia (Hud- 
son Fulton Catalogue, p. 631). 

The Portrait of a Woman, at Budapest, is by still a different hand that 
I shall designate as Vermeer No. 3. Several other pictures put down to 
Vermeer, but which do not belong to him, I am not now concerned with. 
In fact, my main concern is with this portrait of Vermeer No. 3 at Buda- 
pest. I find no other picture in the Vermeer euvre with which this picture 
is in agreement, except possibly the Head of a Young Girl, at The Hague. 
I put them together tentatively. I find no other pictures by this painter, 
except, again, some that I shall put over from the Rembrandt ewvre. 
Whether his name is Vermeer or whether he is some other pupil of Carel 
Fabritius or Rembrandt I am not now able to say. The signature of Ver- 
meer is just as questionable as that of Rembrandt, because his pictures are 
rarer and their value quite as great as those of Rembrandt. So we shall 
have to consider Vermeer signatures as unreliable. 


PICTURES BY VERMEER NO. 3 


BUDAPEST : PortRAIT OF A WoMAN 
MUSEUM (No. 456.) Reproduced in Van Zype, Hale, and Budapest Museum Catalogue.* 
The modelling of the forehead, the cheeks and brows is most effective. The 
eyes are a wonder of observation and workmanship. As for the figure, it is 
very well suggested, the gloves beautifully painted, the relation of whites excel- 


OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT _ 173 


THE HAGUE: 
MUSEUM 


PETROGRAD: 
HERMITAGE 


PHILADELPHIA: 


WIDENER 
COLLECTION 


lent, even now when there is every reason to believe them somewhat changed 
by cleaning.” —New Guides to Old Masters, Budapest, p. 158. 

This picture was once attributed to Rembrandt, but is now assigned 
to Vermeer. 


Heap or Youne GIRL 
(No. 670.) Reproduced in Hale, Van Zype, Hanf.* 


“What a charm it has in its strange blue-and-white head-dress, its colored 
cloak, its plain flat ground, its blue tone! It has not a pronounced blue envel- 
ope, but you feel that blue is in the air, in the shadows of the yellow cloak. . . . 
How light the flesh! How striking the illumination! The brushwork is flat, 
the outline sharp but true and most attractive, the shadows quite perfect, the 
color just right. Add to all this technical and decorative charm the loveliness 
of the type, the purity of the mental conception, and you have an astounding 
picture.” —New Guides to Old Masters, The Hague, p. 101. 


PICTURES BY VERMEER NO. 3 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT 


Youna WoMAN witH PINK 
Signed Rembrandt 1656, K.K.439, B.453, Hanf.* 

To be compared with the Portrait of a Woman at Budapest, for the 
same mental and emotional attitude as well as the resemblances in 
pose, light, drawing, costume—especially the disposition of light on 
the face and the roomy cuffs and their shadows. It has no Rembrandt 
quality about it and is only a fair portrait. 


PorTRAIT OF A WoMAN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.485, B.490. Reproduced in ‘‘ Burlington Maga- 
zine,’ May, 1921. 

This and the following picture are companion pieces and have been 
labelled as portraits of Rembrandt’s son Titus and His Wife, without 
warrant of any kind. Rembrandt probably never saw either portrait. 
They are superb portraits, perhaps by the same hand that did the 
Portrait of a Woman, at Budapest—that is, Vermeer No. 3, the best 
and greatest of my so-called three Vermeers. The resemblances here 
are so many that it is hardly worth while pointing them out, but notice 
the hands, their placing and their holding of objects that fall down 
from the hands, the wrist-bands, the ties, the collars, the drawing of 
the faces, the disposition of the light on the faces, especially along the 
nose and over the right eye, the costume, the pose, the spirit, the dig- 
nity. It is worth while comparing this portrait with the Portrait of 
a Woman attributed to Carel Fabritius (the master of Vermeer) in the 
Burlington Magazine, May, 1921. 


PortRAIT OF A MAN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.484, B.489. Reproduced in “Burlington Maga- 
zine,” May, 1921. 

Companion piece to above. Not so much chance for color in the 
costume as in the Woman’s portrait, but done in the same way, with 
display of the hands and the forming of a second centre of interest in 
the hands. A fine portrait. Both of the portraits are more important 
in art, more valuable in history and even in commerce, as Vermeers 
than as Rembrandts. 


174 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


VLIEGER, SIMON DE 
1601-1653 


Simon de Vlieger was a pupil of the elder Van de Velde, and in no way 
beholden for instruction to Rembrandt, but he worked in the methods of 
the time, perhaps saw the success of the Rembrandtesque forcing of lights 
and darks, and, in measure, was influenced by that success. He is gener- 
ally known as one of the best of the Dutch marine painters. He also 
painted portraits, landscapes, and genre, besides producing many etchings, 
but most of these latter works have been taken from him and handed over 
to Rembrandt and others. It will not be necessary to trace his career or 
his works in detail, for he does not belong to the Rembrandt school. But 
his works should be given back to him. We list only a few of his signed 
pictures—sufficient to identify his property in the Rembrandt euvre. 


PICTURES BY SIMON DE VLIEGER 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 


AMSTERDAM: RETURN OF THE FALCONER 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed 1637.* 
“A fine bit of old ruin, with a good effect of light and shade and much excel- 
lence of color. Without the animals and figures the picture might have passed 
muster as a Rembrandt.’”—New Guides to Old Masters, Amsterdam, p. 58. 


RIvER SCENE 
(No. 2562.) Signed.* 


CASSEL: HoLuaAND Coast 
GALLERY (No. 418.) Signed, Hanf. 

COPENHAGEN: Hunter ON HORSEBACK 
MUSEUM Signed. 


It is a scene somewhat similar to that in the Amsterdam Return of 
the Falconer, and done in precisely the same way. Man on horseback 
at left, with attendant on foot, a woman at window at left, fountain 


at right. 
DRESDEN: STORMY SEA 
GALLERY (No. 1549.) Signed. 
With rocks, tossing vessel, and shipwrecked men. 
GOTTINGEN: SToRM AT SEA 
MUSEUM 


PICTURES BY DE VLIEGER 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 
BOSTON: CHRIST STILLING THE TEMPEST 


GARDNER Signed Rembrandt 1633, K.K.162, B.120. 
COLLECTION Another version of this picture is in the Géttingen Museum, signed 


i 
. 
q 
7 


171. VERMEER OF DELFT: PORTRAIT OF WOMAN 1 VERMEER OF DELFT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
Budapest Museum : : PORTRAIT OF LADY 
Hermitage, Petrograd 


~ 
ros) 


173. VERMEER OF DELFT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 174. VERMEER OF DELFT (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
PORTRAIT OF MAN PORTRAIT OF LADY 
Widener Collection, Philadelphia Widener Collection, Philadelphia 


Puate XLIV 


175. DE VLIEGER: RETURN OF THE FALCONER 


Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


176. DE VLIEGER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): GOOD 
SAMARITAN 


Wallace Collection, London 


177. DE VLIEGER: STORM AT SEA 
Dresden Gallery 


178. DE VLIEGER (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): CHRIST 
STILLING THE TEMPEST 
Gardner Collection, Boston 


Piate XLV 


OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT © 175 


LONDON: 
WALLACE 
COLLECTION 


PARIS: 
LOUVRE 


“S. de Vlieger 1672?” It is said to be a copy by De Vlieger after the 
Rembrandt in the Gardner Collection. But why should De Vlieger 
make a copy of a sea picture by another painter when he himself was 
at that time one of the most celebrated sea painters in Holland? And 
why should he sign a copy? Did Rembrandt ever paint a picture of 
the sea? Did he care about or ever paint anything outside of a studio 
—portrait, marine, landscape, or what-not? If he painted this Gardner 
picture, how did he happen to paint it in the style of two dozen other 
pictures by Simon de Vlieger? If it be compared with any one of De 
Vlieger’s sea pieces it will be found identical in conception and _ tech- 
nique with them. ‘This is simply the old story of a good, strong picture 
by a lesser painter being handed over to a greater painter, Rembrandt. 


Goop SAMARITAN 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.110, B.123.* 


There is an etching almost identical with this picture, reversed on 
the plate, and also attributed to Rembrandt. A coarsely done dog was 
introduced into the etching, perhaps at a later date. Neither etching 
nor painting was done by Rembrandt. The Samaritan etching should 
be compared with the etching called Le Bourg (Dutuit 9) by Simon de 
Vlieger. The etchings are similar in theme and composition, and in 
such properties as the ruined, sagging houses, the well-sweep, the trees, 
animals, people. They are of common inspiration, and yet not by the 
same hand. Le Bourg was done by De Vlieger working directly on the 
plate; the Good Samaritan etching was done by some careful engraver- 
etcher working after the picture of the Good Samaritan, which he pos- 
sibly supposed by Rembrandt. But the picture was done by De 
Vlieger. 

The picture of the Good Samaritan in the Wallace Collection should 
be closely compared with the Return of the Falconer, a signed De 
Vlieger in the Ryks Museum, Amsterdam. There is no doubt about 
De Vlieger doing both pictures. Even placing the photographs side by 
side will suggest as much. The resemblances in composition, subject, 
materials, handling, drawing are too apparent for error. 


Tue CENTURION CORNELIUS 
Attributed to Rembrandt, K.K.301, B.339. 


The Centurion here is the same model as the Good Samaritan (on 
the steps) in the Louvre picture of that name. He wears the same tur- 
ban, coat, sash, and general dress. The central figure of the three ser- 
vants in the Wallace picture is the central figure in the Louvre picture— 
the man holding up the head and shoulders of the wounded man. The 
servant in the helmet is a variation of the boy in the Louvre picture, 
who is looking over the horse. The lighting by spots is pronounced in 
both pictures. Notice the lighting, particularly as it cuts out the 
noses in both pictures. Assignment tentative. 

To this group possibly belongs the Labourers in the Vineyard, 
ascribed to Rembrandt, in the Staedel Institute, Frankfort, but there 
is doubt about it. 


THE Goop SAMARITAN 
Dated 1648 but not signed, K.K.293, B.328. 

The conclusion that this picture was painted by Simon de Vlieger 
was arrived at with some astonishment. It is the picture that Fro- 
mentin wrote about so eloquently and convincingly. Ten years ago, I 


176 REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


gave up the idea that it was a Rembrandt. At that time I thought it 
a picture in which Eeckhout had had some hand. Later when I began 
to study it closely, I found singular resemblances to the little Good 
Samaritan, in the Wallace Collection. The difference in the light, the 
handling, and the surface at first misled me. It was probably done by 
De Vlieger at a later time and in a pronounced Eeckhout manner per- 
haps as an experiment—a second attempt at the same subject. 

The first resemblance I noticed was that the horse was largely in 
evidence in both pictures. The wounded man was being taken from 
the horse, a boy was holding the.horse. The boy seemed the same 
boy. There were steps up to the entrance of a fine old house, a man 
was in each case on the steps—the same man. There was the effect of 
people looking out of the window. A well with a long well-sweep was 
in the middle distance. In the Wallace picture the well-sweep is seen 
in profile, the handle extending into an angle of the building. In the 
Louvre picture there are the same well and well-sweep seen at the corner 
of the building, but the well-sweep is now shown in perspective. So, 
then, this is the same scene—the same mansion—in both pictures, but 
looked at from different angles. In the Wallace picture you have the 
front porch in view; in the Louvre picture you see that portion of the 
house devoted to the domestics—the angle just around the corner as 
seen in the Wallace picture—and only a scrap of the front porch is in 
the view. The well-sweep seems to betray the pictures’ paternity. It 
was a favorite property of De Vlieger’s, and he used it in his etchings. 
So, too, is the composition, with light and landscape at the left in both 
pictures, peculiar to De Vlieger. But a final resemblance seems to settle 
the matter of identity. ‘The Louvre picture has, in the distance, walls 
of a castle-entrance with a doorway cast in dark shadow. This is 
repeated in the Wallace picture, but it is vague and only suggested. If 
one takes up the etching of the Wallace picture attributed to Rembrandt 
the repetition will be seen quite plainly. 

I am convinced that the house, landscape, background, and fore- 
ground composition are practically the same in both pictures. Nor is 
the handling of the pictures very different. Neither is heavily painted. 
The high lights are slightly loaded and dragged a bit. The drawing is 
summary and not authoritative as with Rembrandt. Notice the Good 
Samaritan on the steps and consider, in his flat surface and wooden 
pose, how far removed he is from Rembrandt. Why is it that we have 
never seen until just now that this figure is quite impossible as a Rem- 
brandt? And then we begin to look closer at the light, the dark shad- 
ows, the color, only to see that none of them are more than superficially 
Rembrandtesque. And yet with all said and done, the Good Samari- 
tan is a notable picture, and on the whole Fromentin was right. 


VLIET, WILLEM VAN DER 
1584-1642 


When Rembrandt was born Willem Van der Vliet was twenty-two 
years old, had probably finished his apprenticeship, and had set up as a 
painter for himself. He painted chiefly portraits, and when Rembrandt ; 
took up the brush it may be reasonably believed that Van der Vliet was - 
known and admired by him. There is indication, indeed, that Rembrandt 
was beholden to him for many forceful ways of presenting a sitter on can- 


179. VLIET: PORTRAIT OF WOMAN 180. VLIET (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
Liechtenstein Gallery, Vienna 3 OF GIRL 
Bredius Collection, The Hague 


181. VLIET: PORTRAIT OF BOY 182. VLIET (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT OF BOY 
Miiller sale, Amsterdam, 1900 Private possession, Berlin 


Puate XLVI 


PORTRAIT 184. VLIET (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): PORTRAIT 
OF WOMAN 


Vienna Academy 


188. VLIET (GIVEN TO REMBRANDT): 
OF WOMAN 


Private possession, Denmark 


eA 
¢ 
e 
€ 
€ 
€ 
€ 
€ 
e 
€ 
€ 
€ 
S 
€ 
ca 
Fa 
e 
€ 


186. ELIAS (PICKENOY): PORTRAIT OF MME. RAY 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


185. ELIAS (PICKENOY): PORTRAIT OF MME. 
VAN NOOY 
Ryks Museum, Amsterdam 


Pruate XLVI 


a 


Ci. 


7% 


= 
ae 


OTHER PAINTERS MISTAKEN FOR REMBRANDT _ 177 


vas. His pictures are few but pronounced enough to establish his style, 
and to compare with certain pictures of his now under the name of Rem- 
brandt. 

But the comparison and the consequent inferences must be undertaken 
with caution. There were a number of painters contemporary with Van der 
Vliet who painted portraits in a manner of the times that was very like Van 
der Vliet’s manner. Nicolaes Elias (Pickenoy), who was born about 1591, 
did things that may be easily confused with Van der Vliet’s things. I shall 
place in the illustrations herewith two portraits by Elias beside the Van 
der Vliet portraits for purposes of comparison. But none of these portrait 
painters need be confused with Rembrandt, if the mental, emotional, and 
technical tests are rightly applied. Rembrandt is vastly more serious, 
contained, serene, while seeing more profoundly and painting more force- 
fully. This applies to his early as well as late work. None of the por- 
traits, in the groups of pictures that follow, can be put in a group of Rem- 
brandt’s without disclosing its weakness. 


PICTURES BY VAN DER VLIET 
SIGNED OR OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED 
AMSTERDAM: CuHILD’s PorTRAIT 
RYKS MUSEUM Signed 1638. 
Very good flat painting, if a little hard in contours. 
AMSTERDAM: PortTRAIT OF Boy 


MULLER SALE, Signed. 
1900 


BRUSSELS: PortRAIT OF ONE OF OVERSCHIE FAMILY 
MUSEUM Signed 16? 
LEIPSIC: PoRTRAIT 
MUSEUM Signed 1632. 
In the style of a smooth De Keyser. 
LONDON: PORTRAIT OF A PROFESSOR 
NATIONAL Signed 1631. 
GALLERY 
LONDON: Portrait oF Youna Boy 
AGNEW’S 
VIENNA: PortrairT oF WoMAN 
LIECHTEN- Signed 1624. 
STEIN Smoothly, even thinly, painted, but accurately drawn. 
GALLERY 


Other portraits by Van der Vliet, in private possession, at The Hague 
and Berlin. 


178 


BERLIN: 
PRIVATE 
POSSESSION 


DENMARK: 
HAGE 
COLLECTION 


ENGLAND: 
KINNAIRD 
COLLECTION 


THE HAGUE: 
BREDIUS 
COLLECTION 


LONDON: 
BRIDGEWATER 
COLLECTION 


VIENNA: 
ACADEMY OF 
ART 


REMBRANDT AND HIS SCHOOL 


PICTURES BY VAN DER VLIET 
GIVEN TO REMBRANDT OR OTHERS 


Youne Man 
Signed R.H.L., K.K.51, B.A8. 

To be compared with the Miiller Sale Van der Vliet for the draw- 
ing of the head and the general pose of the figure. Freely handled 
and more summary in drawing than is usual with Van der Vliet. Attri- 
bution tentative. 


Younae Woman 
Signed R.H.L. Van Ryn 1632, K.K.73, B.560. 

It follows the Vienna Academy portrait and seems to be the same 
model. Assignment tentative. 


Youna Woman 
Signed Rembrandi 1636, K.K.211, B.119. 

It is surprising that the authorities and experts who accept such 
pictures as this by Rembrandt do not miss the Rembrandt shadow, 
which he used in his earliest works. This is work of the time just pre- 
ceding Rembrandt—work of the kind produced by Van der Vliet, Elias, 
and others. 


Youna Woman 
Signed R.H.L., K.K.51, B.52. 

With the same inclination and drawing of the head, the same dry 
spirit of academic elegance that has been noted in the preceding pic- 
tures on this list. Assignment tentative. 


Youna WoMAN 
Signed Rembrandt 1634, K.K.203, B.115. 

The same drawing and forward inclination of the head, as in almost 
all of the Van der Vliets. The same stilted pose and elegance also. 
Assignment tentative. 


Younc WoMAN 
Signed R.H.L. van Ryn 1632, K.K.72, B.75. 


The style a little formal, with an attempt at academic elegance that 
runs through all Van der Vliet’s pictures. It agrees with the London 
and Denmark portraits. It has neither the mental nor technical grip of a 
Rembrandt, and yet there is a shade of doubt about its being a Van 
der Vliet. Assignment tentative. 


GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 
ND 653 R4 V4 
c.2 Van Dyke, 
Rembrandt and his school; a critical stu 


AA 


3 3125 00221 8648 


Rey SiO Psst aw 
rere) 
one 
Tepe angyees see 
ohesene Pore riesre ries 
Th re ee M : ats se 
ran ' 


fate aap te 

pean sey pia, rt 

“ en 
eye 


ah 
bob te 68 2 


calle 
Y sotitats 
rites 
arr 
«anes telat $ 


pie 


tere 


oy 


arenesehaskrecerbbss ; So puphhae be re 
ieietsteriet ; Hew 


ay 
a 
a 


ep: 


oh) stein 


Bary 


peeeciecheey oe 


= ros 
Sena eet 


sEetsth tote 


fe aaecess 


Pha 
pee 
Lilet 

nga 

5%: 

jauezpeaiadery 

Hiaar betes 

es 


sep ag ioe . rene “ # mined wig Lars? apa 
aetiiee ? . be : odes Reese oy eure : ~ feet stats - : “ E Ditty 


i 


. ee 
Reet Seas 
geet 


opr pail Moe 
paper snr teat ote 


